GR 114944; (May, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. 114944 . May 29, 2002
MANUEL C. ROXAS and AHMED S. NACPIL, petitioners, vs. HON. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, Ombudsman and JOSE DE FERRER, Deputy Special Prosecutor, and the HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Manuel C. Roxas and Ahmed S. Nacpil, Chairman and Member of the Bids and Awards Committee for a fire truck procurement, were among several officials investigated for alleged violation of R.A. No. 3019 . After preliminary investigation, the Office of the Special Prosecutor recommended the dismissal of charges against them, which the Ombudsman approved in a Memorandum dated April 15, 1993. Consequently, they were not included in the original information filed with the Sandiganbayan. Subsequently, co-accused moved for reinvestigation, which was granted. Following this reinvestigation, the Special Prosecutor, in a sudden reversal, recommended the inclusion of Roxas and Nacpil as accused. This was approved by the Ombudsman, leading to the filing of an amended information against them.
ISSUE
Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion, violating petitioners’ right to due process, by ordering their inclusion as accused after the dismissal of charges against them without notice or opportunity to be heard during the reinvestigation.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the motion for reconsideration, setting aside its prior decision. The Court held that while the Ombudsman retains jurisdiction to reinvestigate a case, fundamental due process requires that parties be afforded notice and an opportunity to be heard. Here, the initial dismissal of charges against petitioners was a final resolution from which no motion for reconsideration was filed. Petitioners rightly considered the matter closed. The subsequent reinvestigation, initiated solely for other accused, proceeded without notifying petitioners. Their inclusion as accused based on findings from proceedings they had no knowledge of or participation in constituted a denial of procedural due process. At minimum, petitioners should have been notified of the reinvestigation and given a chance to confront any new accusations. The case was remanded to the Ombudsman for proper determination of probable cause with due observance of petitioners’ right to be heard.