CA grants De Lima's petition; remands to Ombudsman for 'proper disposition' charges vs ex-DOJ Secs Aguirre, Guevarra

For lack of due process, the Court of Appeals (CA) has reversed the ruling of the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) which dismissed in 2019 the criminal and administrative complaints filed by former senator Leila M. de Lima against then justice secretaries Vitaliano N. Aguirre II and Menardo I. Guevarra, now solicitor general.

With the reversal, the CA remanded to the OMB De Lima’s complaints – which were incidents to the filing of illegal drugs cases in court against the former senator and her detention – for “proper disposition.”

De Lima, also a former justice secretary, charged Aguirre and Guevarra criminally with 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 and including them in the government’s witness protection program.

The testimonies of the PDLs during the 2016 congressional investigation led to the filing of illegal drugs cases against De Lima and several other persons before the Department of Justice (DOJ) in 2017.

Also in 2017, 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 that led to her detention at the Philippine National Police’s custodial center in Camp Crame in Quezon City.

De Lima had been acquitted by the RTC in two criminal cases. In her 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 a decision issued last Nov. 21 and made public on Friday, Nov. 24, the CA ruled: “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 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 drugs trading at the New Bilibid Prison (NBP) in Muntinlupa City.

Also, De Lima said that the inclusion of the PDLs in the government’s witness protection program was violative of the 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 that 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 performance of their official duties.

It 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 resolving De Lima’s petition, the CA said 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 that “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 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.

It also 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 CA ruled: “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.”