G.R. No. 207355, February 03, 2016 JENNIFER A. AGUSTIN-SE AND ROER!IA J. JA!SANIRODRIGUE", Petitioners OFFI FI#E #E OF T TE E $R $RES ESID IDEN ENT T, RE RE$R $RES ESEN ENTE TED D %& Petitioners,, v. OF E'E#UTI(E E'E#U TI(E SE#RE SE#RETA TAR& R& $A)UITO $A)UITO N. O#OA O#OA,, JR., OR*AN OR*ANDO DO #. #ASI!IR #ASI!IRO, O, O(ERA** DE$UT& O!%UDS!AN, OFFI#E OF TE O!%UDS!AN, AND JON I.#. TURA*%A, A#TING DE$UT& S$E#IA* $ROSE#UTOR, OFFI#E OF TE S$E#IA* $ROSE#UTOR , Responden Respondents ts.. TE #ASE+
This is a pet This petit ition ion for Certiorar Certiorarii for the cas casee of ins insubo ubordi rdinat nation ion whe where re the Over Overall all Dep Deputy uty Ombudsman (ODO) is accused of tolerating procedural lapses in the prosecution of the case, and so instead of following the former’s order to file oppositions or comments to the otion to !uas !u ash h of th thee re resp spond onden ents ts,, th they ey in inst stead ead fi file led d e emo mora rand ndum um co cont ntai aini ning ng th thei eirr fi findi nding ngss of irregularities against the Deputy Ombudsman before the "pecial #rosecutor, which shared to the Depu De puty ty "pe "peci cial al #r #ros osec ecut utor or (D (D"#) "#),, an and d wh whic ich h li li$e $ewi wise se sh shar ared ed it to th thee Ov Over eral alll De Depu puty ty Ombudsman. TE FA#TS+
#etitioners are %ssistant "pecial #rosecutors &&& of the Office of the Ombudsman, who have been assigned to prosecute cases against 't. en. (et.) 'eopoldo ". %cot (%cot), *gen. (et.) &ldelfonso +. Dulinayan (Dulinayan) and several others before the "andiganbayan for alleged ghost deliveries of assorted supplies and materials to the #hilippine %ir orce amounting to about -ighty +ine illion #esos (#/,000,000.00). "ometime in early 1//2, the 3udge %dvocate eneral4s Office of the %rmed orces of the #hilippines filed a complaint before the Ombudsman against %cot, Dulinayan and several others for violation of "ection 5(e) of the %nti6raft and Corrupt #ractices %ct (epublic %ct +o. 501/ 7% +o. 501/8) and9or for alversation through alsification. This was filed in a esolution dated 1: %pril 1//; which was signed and approved by Casimiro who was then the Director of the Criminal and %dministrative &nvestigation Division of the Office of the Ombudsman and the immediate supervisor of %lma
&n a emorandum dated :2 3une :00>, the O'% noted that the 1: %pril 1//; esolution had ?no force and effect because it was never promulgated.? The O'% recommended, among others, the filing of &nformations against %cot, Dulinayan and several others. &n a emorandum dated :5 ebrua eb ruary ry :00 :00/, /, %s %ssis sistan tantt "pec "pecial ial #ro #rosec secutor utor && Ter erence ence ". er ernand nando o of the Off Office ice of the Ombudsman #roper recommended the approval of the O'%4s emorandum. On 5 arch :00/, acting act ing pursuant pursuant to del delegat egated ed aut author hority ity,, Cas Casimi imiro ro app approv roved ed bot both h the :2 3un 3unee :00> and :5 ebruary :00/ emoranda. The &nformations were thereafter filed against %cot, Dulinayan and several others with the "andiganbayan.
%cot and Dulinayan filed their respective otions to !uash9Dismiss and to Defer %rraignment mainly on the grounds that@ (1) the right of the "tate to prosecute had already prescribedA and (:) given the amount of time the case was filed after the preliminary investigation was started almost 12 years, their right to speedy disposition of case had been violated. Dulinayan further alleged that a clearance had been issued by the Office of the Ombudsman stating that there were no pending cases against him. The "andiganbayan reBuired petitioners, the assigned prosecutors for this case, to comment on the motions filed by %cot and Dulinayan. *ased on their evaluation evaluation of the recor records, ds, petitioners petitioners found that there were proced procedural ural lapses in the handling of the cases, which they attributed to Casimiro. Thus, instead of filing the reBuired Commentt and9or Opposition Commen Opposition with the "andig "andiganbayan, anbayan, petitioners petitioners submi submitted tted a emor emorandum andum date da ted d 2 3a 3anua nuary ry :0 :010, 10, wh whic ich h con conta tain ined ed th thei eirr fi findi nding ngss aga again inst st Ca Casi simi miro ro.. =o =owe wever ver,, th thee &nformations against %cot, Dulinayan and several others were subseBuently dismissed by the "andiganbayan for violation of the accused4s right to speedy disposition of the case. On 5 +ovember :010, petitioners filed their own Complaint before Complaint before the O#, alleging that Casimiro and Turalba committed the following administrative infractions@ (1) grave misconduct, (:) gross negligenceA (5) oppressions, () conduct grossly preudicial to the best interest of the serviceA (2) violation of the rules on confidentialityA (;) violation of Office Order +o. 0261, and Office Order +o. 02615A and (>) violation of "ection 52 of % +o. ;>>0, amounting amounting to dishon dishonesty esty and gross misconduct. &n a Decision dated 1 3une :011, the O# dismissed the complaint filed against Casimiro and Turalba. Casimiro, as a mere Director of a *ureau of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for ili i lita tary ry an and d ot othe herr 'a 'aw w -n -nfo forc rcem ement ent Of Offi fice cess an and d who wa wass th there ereaf afte terr ap appo poin inte ted d Dep Deputy uty Ombudsman only on December 1;, 1///, he had every right to presume regularity in the investigation of the case. &n fact, no less than the Office of 'egal %ffairs of the Office of the Ombudsman, concluded that the esolution dated 1: %pril 1//; had never become final. +o delay, therefore, may be attributed to respondent Casimiro who came across the records of the case nine (/) years after he signed the esolution dated 1: %pril 1//; recommending the filing of informations to his superior, if the Office of the Ombudsman itself never considered that the esolution dated 1: %pril 1//; as final and eEecutory. =an eEecutory. =an roblesvirtuallawlibrary
The Court of %ppeals %ppeals affi affirmed rmed the decis decision ion rendered by the O#. The C% ruled that respon respondent dent Casimiro cannot be faulted in the delay, if any, in filing the appropriate criminal &nformations agai ag ains nstt %co cott an and d Du Duli lina naya yan n co cons nsid ider erin ing g th that at Om Ombu buds dsm man De Desi sier erto to ov over erru rule led d th thee recomm rec ommenda endati tions ons and conc concurr urrenc encee by the &nv &nvest estiga igator torss and Cas Casimi imiro ro as to the fin findin ding g of probable cause against the said military officials. officials.
ISSUE+
Fhether or not the petitioner’s right to due process was violated when the O# (1) did not cons co nsid ider er th thee ev evid iden ence ce th they ey ha have ve pr pres esen ente ted d an and d (: (:)) is issu sued ed it itss de deci cisi sion on wi with thou outt th thee recommendation of the Office of the Deputy -Eecutive "ecretary for 'egal %ffairs %ffairs (OD-"'%) as provided in -Eecutive Order (-O) +o. 15.
E*D+
The contentions of the #etitioners are untenable The es The esse sence nce of due pr proc oces esss is an opp oppor ortu tuni nity ty to be he hear ard d 6 as ap appli plied ed to adm admin inis istr trat ativ ivee proceedings, it is an opportunity to eEplain one4s on e4s side or an opportunity to see$ a reconsideration 5 of the action or ruling complained of. &n this case, petitioners were given both opportunities 6 the opportunity to eEplain their side by filing their pleadings which contained all their allegations and evidence in support of their arguments, and the opportunity to see$ a reconsideration of the ruling complained of, as shown by their motions for reconsideration and appeals. %s long as parties are afforded these opportunities, the reBuirement of due process in administrative proceedings is sufficiently met. %s evidenced by the pleadings filed during the administrative proceeding, and their subseBuent appeal to the Court of %ppeals and now to this Court, they have been afforded the fullest opportunity to establish their claims and to see$ a reconsideration of the ruling complained of. oreover, a reading of the decisions of the Court of %ppeals and the O# shows that the evidence petitioners presented had been duly considered. &ndeed, aside from their general allegation that the Court of %ppeals did not consider their evidence, petitioners failed to identify any conclusion arrived at by the Court of %ppeals or the O# that was not supported by the evidence on record. oreover, both the Court of %ppeals and the O# addressed the issues raised by the parties, and subs su bseBu eBuen entl tly y ci cite ted d th thee pr prope operr ev evid iden ence ce on re reco cord rd an and d Bu Buot oted ed th thee app appli lica cabl blee la laws ws an and d urisprudence to support their findings. The bare allegation that they were denied due process cannot overcome the clear fact that they were given every opportunity o pportunity to establish their claims. Thus, the petition was Denied and the "upreme Court %&-D the decisions made by the Office of the #resident and Court of %ppeals.
