Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 324 views

    Agdeppa V Ombudsman

    Uploaded by

    Gino Alejandro Sison
    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a preliminary investigation conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman. 1. Agdeppa filed a complaint alleging the Ombudsman investigators violated his due process rights during a preliminary investigation of separate complaints against him. 2. The Supreme Court held that preliminary investigations are intended to protect the innocent from hasty prosecution and expensive trials, and are thus a substantive due process right. 3. Denying a request for preliminary investigation would deprive one of due process. However, a complainant cannot insist on a preliminary investigation if the initial complaint lacks merit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Agdeppa V Ombudsman

    Uploaded by

    Gino Alejandro Sison
    324 views2 pages
    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a preliminary investigation conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman. 1. Agdeppa filed a complaint alleging the Ombudsman investigators violated his due process rights during a preliminary investigation of separate complaints against him. 2. The Supreme Court held that preliminary investigations are intended to protect the innocent from hasty prosecution and expensive trials, and are thus a substantive due process right. 3. Denying a request for preliminary investigation would deprive one of due process. However, a complainant cannot insist on a preliminary investigation if the initial complaint lacks merit.

    Original Title

    8. Agdeppa v Ombudsman

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a preliminary investigation conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman. 1. Agdeppa filed a complaint alleging the Ombudsman investigators violated his due process rights during a preliminary investigation of separate complaints against him. 2. The Supreme Court held that preliminary investigations are intended to protect the innocent from hasty prosecution and expensive trials, and are thus a substantive due process right. 3. Denying a request for preliminary investigation would deprive one of due process. However, a complainant cannot insist on a preliminary investigation if the initial complaint lacks merit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    324 views2 pages

    Agdeppa V Ombudsman

    Uploaded by

    Gino Alejandro Sison
    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a preliminary investigation conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman. 1. Agdeppa filed a complaint alleging the Ombudsman investigators violated his due process rights during a preliminary investigation of separate complaints against him. 2. The Supreme Court held that preliminary investigations are intended to protect the innocent from hasty prosecution and expensive trials, and are thus a substantive due process right. 3. Denying a request for preliminary investigation would deprive one of due process. However, a complainant cannot insist on a preliminary investigation if the initial complaint lacks merit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    NAME

    RULE 112: PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION


    Agdeppa vs Ombudsman

    April 23, 2014 G.R. No. 146376 Leonardo-de Castro

    RECIT READY SYNOPSIS


     Relevant Fact
     Relevant Issue
     Held
    Relevant Provisions / Concept / Doctrines

    FACTS
    1. Respondent Junia filed a Complaint against Agdeppa and Castillo, auditors of COA at the NHA.
    a. He alleged overpayment in a project, facilitated through dubious and confusing audit
    reports prepared by Agdeppa and endorsed by Castillo.
    b. Agdeppa had filed a case against him, which the Office of the Ombudsman had endorsed
    to the City Prosecutor of QC.
    2. His complaint was signed by him, as well as certified and verified, but not under oath.
    a. Atty. Marydel Jarlos-Martin, Graft Investigation Officer II under the Office of the
    Ombudsman, gave due course to Junia’s complaint.
    3. Agdeppa wrote the office of the Ombudsman, alleging that the complaint was not an affidavit-
    complaint. Jarlos-Martin then ordered Junia to swear to his complaint, which was promptly
    accomplished. Agdeppa filed a Motion to Resolve, opposing Jarlos-Martin’s subsequent order to
    file a counter-affidavit.
    a. He alleged violation of Sec. 3, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, that the next step after the
    filing of his counter affidavit was the setting of a hearing for clarificatory questioning.
    b. He also alleged that he had answered the complaint
    c. Jarlos-Martin eventually issued a Resolution finding probable cause to indict Agdeppa and
    Castillo for violation of Section 3e of R.A. 3019.
    4. Agdeppa filed before the Office of the Ombudsman an affidavit-complaint, alleging Jarlos-Martin,
    Laurezo, and Junia of violating RA 3019 and the Ombudsman Rules of Procedure alleging:
    a. That Jarlos-Martin’s order for him to respond to the newly-sworn affidavit-complaint gave
    unwarranted benefits to Junia by giving him another chance to file a reply to any answer
    or counter-affidavit Agdeppa would give.
    b. That Laurezo, by subscribing to Junia’s affidavit-complaint, constituted a corrupt act under
    Section 3a of RA 3019
    5. Office of the Ombudsman dismissed Agdeppa’s complaint. MR denied. Hence, the instant case.
    ISSUE
    Did the Office of the Ombudsman deny Agdeppa due process by dismissing the complaint against
    Jarlos-Martin and Laurezo?
    RULING
    1. A preliminary investigation is held before an accused is placed on trial  to secure the innocent against
    hasty, malicious, and oppressive prosecution; to protect him from an open and public accusation of a
    crime, as well as from the trouble, expenses, and anxiety of a public trial. It is also intended to protect
    the state from having to conduct useless and expensive trials. While the right is statutory rather than
    constitutional, it is a component of due process in administering criminal justice. The right to have a
    preliminary investigation conducted before being bound for trial and before being exposed to the risk of
    incarceration and penalty is not a mere formal or technical right;  it is a substantive right. To deny the
    accused’s claim to a preliminary investigation is to deprive him of the full measure of his right to due
    process.
    2. Clearly, the right to preliminary investigation is a component of the right of the respondent/accused to
    substantive due process. A complainant cannot insist that a preliminary investigation be held when the
    complaint was dismissed outright because of palpable lack of merit. It goes against the very nature and
    purpose of preliminary investigation to still drag the respondent/accused through the rigors of such an

    1
    investigation so as to aid the complainant in substantiating an accusation/charge that is evidently baseless
    from the very beginning.

    You might also like