Former Senator Leila de Lima won another significant legal battle when the Court of Appeals overturned a 2019 ruling of the Office of the Ombudsman that tossed out her criminal and administrative complaints against then-Justice secretaries Vitaliano Aguirre II and Menardo Guevarra.
The Court of Appeals (CA) has overturned for lack of due process a ruling of the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) that dismissed in 2019 criminal and administrative complaints filed by De Lima against Aguirre II and Guevarra, the current Solicitor General.
With the ruling, the CA remanded to the OMB De Lima’s complaints – which were incidents to the filing of illegal drugs cases in court against her– for “proper disposition.”
De Lima, herself a former Justice Secretary who was incarcerated for nearly seven years on drug charges, criminally accused Aguirre and Guevarra of dereliction of duty and graft, and administratively for grave misconduct and gross negligence for allowing persons deprived of liberty (PDLs) to testify against her in illegal drugs cases, as well as including them in the government’s witness protection program.
The testimonies of the PDLs or inmates during the 2016 congressional investigation led to the filing of illegal drug cases against De Lima and several other persons before the Department of Justice (DOJ) in 2017.
In the same year, the DOJ filed before the Muntinlupa City Regional Trial Court (RTC) three criminal cases against De Lima and her co-accused.
With the findings of probable cause by the RTC, warrants of arrest were issued against De Lima, leading to her detention at the Philippine National Police’s custodial center in Camp Crame in Quezon City.
De Lima has been acquitted by the RTC in two criminal cases. In the third case which is still pending decision by the trial court, she was granted bail and was ordered released after more than six years of detention.
“In the light of the foregoing, the assailed Notices of the Ombudsman (resolutions on dismissal of the complaints) are hereby declared void for lack of due process. Accordingly, this case is remanded to the Ombudsman for appropriate action for a proper disposition of this case,” the CA said, in a decision dated Nov. 21 and made public on Friday. (See full story online at manilastandard.net)
The decision was written by Associate Justice Raymond Reynold R. Lauigan with the concurrence of Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas Jr. and Eleuterio L. Bathan of the CA’s special 17th division.
In filing criminal and administrative charges against Aguirre and Guevarra, De Lima said the two officials gave unwarranted benefits to the PDLs who testified against her and failed to prosecute them despite their confession to alleged illegal drug trading at the New Bilibid Prison (NBP) in Muntinlupa City.
De Lima also said the inclusion of the PDLs in the government’s witness protection program was violative of a provision of Republic Act No. 6981, the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act.
She pointed out that both Aguirre and Guevarra provided the PDLs “unwarranted benefits under the law and used them illegally as DOJ’s witnesses” against her.
The PDLs who testified during the congressional investigation were identified as Jojo Baligad, Peter Co, Vicente Sy, Hans Anton Tan, Herbert Colangco, Noel G. Martinez, Froilan Trestiza, Engelberto A. Durano, Nonilo A. Arile, Jaime Patcho, and Rodolfo T. Magleo.
De Lima said because the PDLs were placed under the witness protection program, the cases against them were dismissed by the DOJ by reason of their immunity as government witnesses.
The OMB dismissed De Lima’s complaints even without requiring Aguirre and Guevarra to answer the charges. Among other things, the OMB ruled that Aguirre and Guevarra enjoyed the presumption of regularity in the performance of their official duties.
The Ombudsman also ruled that since the DOJ did not confirm categorically the inclusion of the PDLs in the witness protection program on account of confidentiality, any investigation would be a fishing expedition on the part of the OMB.
In ruling in favor of De Lima’s petition, the CA noted that “there was no valid reason for the Ombudsman to have refused to conduct an investigation on the administrative charges.
“Its unjustified refusal is contrary to its mandate under the law (RA 6770 or the Ombudsman Act), and cannot be tolerated,” the appellate court said.
The CA said, “the proper course of action for the Ombudsman, therefore, was not to wash its hands clean of the administrative cases by dismissing the same outright, but to furnish respondent (Guevarra) with a copy of petitioner’s (De Lima) Complaint-Affidavit and its annexes, and order the respondent to file his counter-affidavit and evidence in support of his defense, in accordance with Section 5, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman.”
“In dismissing the administrative complaint outright based on inapplicable exceptions under Section 20 of R.A. No. 6770, the Ombudsman clearly deviated from its own rules of procedure, which is a violation of procedural due process,” the CA said.
“The doctrine consistently adhered to by this Court is that a decision rendered without due process is void ab initio (from the beginning) and may be attacked directly or collaterally. A decision is void for lack of due process if, as a result, a party is deprived of the opportunity to be heard,” the appellate court added.
“Wherefore, the Petition is granted. The Notices dated 21 May 2019 and 18 September 2020 of the Office of the Ombudsman in IC-OC-18-2003 are hereby reversed and set aside. The case is remanded to the Office of the Ombudsman for appropriate action,” the CA said.