Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=50638:gr-156851-2008&amp;catid=1502&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:01:43+00:00

Document:
HEIDE M. ESTANDARTE, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Before the Court are Petitions for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, filed by Heide1 M. Estandarte (petitioner) which seek to reverse and set aside the Order2 dated September 24, 2002 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bago City, Branch 62 denying the petitioner's Motion for Reinvestigation and the Order3 dated December 20, 2002 of the same court denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration issued in consolidated Criminal Case Nos. 1918-1922.
Two complaints were eventually filed by private complainants against petitioner with the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas (Ombudsman-Visayas) docketed as OMB-VIS-Crim-99-1094 and OMB-VIS-Crim-2000-1127.
The principal Ms. Estandarte accepted cash and in kind donations without being properly channeled and accounted first by the property custodian and the cash without first deposited in the Trust Fund.
The criminal cases were consolidated.
The Court shall first discuss the procedural aspect of the case.
The herein assailed RTC Order dated September 24, 2002 denied petitioner's Motion for Reinvestigation, and the other assailed RTC Order dated December 20, 2002 denied her Motion for Reconsideration.
The herein Petition for Review on Certiorari assails the jurisdiction of the RTC in issuing the Orders in question denying petitioner's Motion for Reinvestigation, on the ground that the five Informations filed against the petitioner contained charges beyond the Bill of Particulars filed by the private complainants, thereby depriving her of due process.
Accordingly, the Court shall treat the instant petition as a Petition for Certiorariunder Rule 65 of the Rules of Court since the primordial issue to be resolved is whether the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying petitioner's Motion for Reinvestigation.
Thus, the Court will now proceed to determine the merits of the present petition.
On the first assigned error, petitioner insists that the Ombudsman-Visayas should have limited the charges filed against her to the crimes mentioned in the Bill of Particulars, and that the filing of the Informations charging her with crimes different from those specified in the Bill of Particulars violates her right to due process.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) counters that a bill of particulars is not allowed by Administrative Order No. 7, entitled Rules of Procedure in the Office of the Ombudsman39 (A.O. No. 7); and that therefore the Ombudsman cannot be bound by the Bill of Particulars submitted by private complainants.
d) No motion to dismiss shall be allowed except for lack of jurisdiction. Neither may a motion for a bill of particulars be entertained. If the respondent desires any matter in the complainant's affidavit to be clarified, the particularization thereof may be done at the time of clarificatory questioning in the manner provided in paragraph (f) of this section.
The Court finds the argument of petitioner that when the City Prosecutor was deputized by the Ombudsman-Visayas to conduct the preliminary investigation, any action taken therein is, in effect, an action of the Ombudsman, who is bound by the act of the City Prosecutor in granting the Motion for Bill of Particulars, and is not tenable.
Consequently, in the present case, petitioner has no valid basis for insisting that the Ombudsman-Visayas must be bound by the erroneous act of the City Prosecutor in granting petitioner's Motion for Bill of Particulars. Laws and jurisprudence grant the Office of the Ombudsman the authority to reverse or nullify the acts of the prosecutor pursuant to its power of control and supervision over deputized prosecutors. Hence, it was within the prerogative of the Ombudsman-Visayas not to consider the Bill of Particulars submitted by the private complainants.
This brings the Court to the second assigned error.
While the Bill of Particulars is not allowed under the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman and therefore should not be the basis for determining what specific criminal charges should be filed against herein petitioner, it behooves the Ombudsman to accord the petitioner her basic rights to due process in the conduct of the preliminary investigation.
(b) Within ten (10) days after the filing of the complaint, the investigating officer shall either dismiss it if he finds no ground to continue with the investigation, or issue a subpoena to the respondent attaching to it a copy of the complaint and its supporting affidavits and documents.
(c) Within ten (10) days from receipt of the subpoena with the complaint and supporting affidavits and documents, the respondent shall submit his counter-affidavit and that of his witnesses and other supporting documents relied upon for his defense. The counter-affidavits shall be subscribed and sworn to and certified as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, with copies thereof furnished by him to the complainant. The respondent shall not be allowed to file a motion to dismiss in lieu of a counter-affidavit.
a) If the complaint is not under oath or is based only on official reports, the investigating officer shall require the complainant or supporting witnesses to execute affidavits to substantiate the complaints.
b) After such affidavits have been secured, the investigating officer shall issue an order, attaching thereto a copy of the affidavits and other supporting documents, directing the respondent to submit, within ten (10) days from receipt thereof, his counter-affidavits and controverting evidence with proof of service thereof on the complainant. The complainant may file reply affidavits within ten (10) days after service of the counter-affidavits.
c) If the respondent does not file a counter-affidavit, the investigating officer may consider the comment filed by him, if any, as his answer to the complaint. In any event, the respondent shall have access to the evidence on record.
e) If the respondent cannot be served with the order mentioned in paragraph 6 hereof, or having been served, does not comply therewith, the complaint shall be deemed submitted for resolution on the basis of the evidence on record.
f) If, after the filing of the requisite affidavits and their supporting evidences, there are facts material to the case which the investigating officer may need to be clarified on, he may conduct a clarificatory hearing during which the parties shall be afforded the opportunity to be present but without the right to examine or cross'examine the witness being questioned. Where the appearance of the parties or witnesses is impracticable, the clarificatory questioning may be conducted in writing, whereby the questions desired to be asked by the investigating officer or a party shall be reduced into writing and served on the witness concerned who shall be required to answer the same in writing and under oath.
g) Upon the termination of the preliminary investigation, the investigating officer shall forward the records of the case together with his resolution to the designated authorities for their appropriate action thereon.
While there is no rule that the initial complaint filed against an accused with the prosecutor's office should specifically state the particular law under which he is being charged, it is a basic elementary rule that the complaint should specifically allege the criminal acts complained of, so as to enable the accused to prepare his answer or counter-affidavit accurately and intelligently.
In resolving the question whether petitioner was denied due process, the RTC or this Court cannot rely on the disputable presumption that official duties have been regularly performed. The RTC should have required the petitioner to submit the subpoenas and the attached documents served on her to enable it to examine the same and resolve whether the petitioner's right to be informed was violated. It was only upon ascertaining this fact that the RTC could have validly determined whether petitioner was denied due process.
It must be stressed that the primordial issue in the present petition is not whether the Ombudsman-Visayas had correctly found a probable cause to justify the filing of the five Informations against herein petitioner, but whether she was not accorded due process in the conduct of the preliminary investigation as to entitle her to a reinvestigation. A valid and just determination of whether there is a probable cause on the part of the Ombudsman to bring the cases to court against petitioner would ensue only when the petitioner has been fully accorded due process in the conduct of the preliminary investigation.
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The assailed Orders dated September 24, 2002 and December 20, 2002 of the Regional Trial Court of Bago City, Branch 62 are SET ASIDE. The case is remanded to the trial courtfor determination whether petitioner was denied due process in the conduct of the preliminary investigation.
1 Spelled as "Heidi" in the Information and other pleadings.
2 Penned by Judge Henry J. Trocino, rolllo, pp. 21-23.
7 Records (Criminal Case No. 1918), p. 72.
Section 68. Issuance of Official receipt. - (1) No payment of any nature shall be received by a collection officer without immediately issuing an official receipt in acknowledgment thereof. The receipt may be in the form of postage, internal revenue or documentary stamps and the like, or officially numbered receipts, subject to proper custody, accountability, and audit.
(2) Where mechanical devices are used to acknowledge cash receipts, the Commission may approve, upon request, exemption from the use of accountable forms.
Section 69. Deposit of moneys in the treasury. - (1) Public officers authorized to receive and collect moneys arising from taxes, revenues, or receipts of any kind shall remit or deposit intact the full amounts so received and collected by them to the treasury of the agency concerned and credited to the [particular accounts to which the said money belong. The amount of the collections ultimately payable to other agencies of the government shall thereafter be remitted to the respective treasuries of these agencies, under regulations which the Commission and the Department (Ministry) of Finance shall prescribe.
(2) When exigencies of the service so require, under such rules and regulations as the Commission and the Department (Ministry) of Finance may prescribe. Postmasters, ay be authorized to use their collections to pay money orders, telegraphic transfers and withdrawals from the proper depository bank whenever their cash advance funds for the purpose have been exhausted. The amount of collections so used shall be restored upon receipt by the postmaster of the replenishment of his cash advance.
(3) Pending remittance to the proper treasury, collecting officers may temporarily deposit collections received by them with any treasury, subject to regulations of the Commission.
(4) The respective treasuries of these agencies shall in turn deposit with the proper government depository the full amount of the collections not later than the following banking day."
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions. x x x."
17 Criminal Case Nos. 1918-1922, all entitled "People of the Philippines v. Heidi M. Estandarte".
18 Records (Crim. Case No.1918), pp. 1-3.
19 Records (Crim. Case No. 1919), pp. 1-3.
20 Records (Crim. Case No. 1920), pp. 1-3.
21 Records (Crim. Case No. 1921), pp. 1-3.
22 Records (Crim. Case No. 1922), pp. 1-3.
23 Records (Crim. Case No. 1918), pp. 33-37.
33 Sec.2. Modes of Appeal. - x x x (c) Appeal by certiorari . - In all cases where only questions of law are raised or involved, the appeal shall be to the Supreme Court by Petition for Review on Certiorari in accordance with Rule 45.
34 Bukidnon Doctors' Hospital, Inc. v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co., G.R. No. 161882, July 8, 2005, 463 SCRA 222, 232.
35 As amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, effective December 27, 2007.
36 See Longos Rural Waterworks and Sanitation Association, Inc. v. Desierto, 434 Phil. 618, 624 (2002); Fortich v. Corona, 352 Phil. 461, 477 (1998).
37 Security Bank Corporation v. Indiana Aerospace University, G.R. No. 146197, June 27, 2005, 461 SCRA 260, 268.
39 Effective May 1, 1990.
40 Lastimosa v. Vasquez, 313 Phil. 358, 372-373 (1995); Office of the Ombudsman v. Valera, G.R. No. 164250, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA 715, 743-744.
43 Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, 379 Phil. 165, 210 (2000).
44 Petition for Review on Certiorari, rollo, p. 5; Reply to Comment, id. at 92; Memorandum of the Petitioner, id. at 107.
46 Development Bank of the Philippines v. Perez, G.R. No. 148541, November 11, 2004, 442 SCRA 238, 248.
47 Cruz, Jr. v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 110436, June 27, 1994, 233 SCRA 439, 449.
48 Olivas v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 102420, December 20, 1994, 239 SCRA 283, 295.
49 Ortiz v. Palaypayon, A.M. No. MTJ-93-823, July 25, 1994, 234 SCRA 391, 396.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.