SEN. JINGGOY ESTRADA VS. OMBUDSMAN
FACTS:
Senator Jinggoy Estrada and several other respondents were charged with Plunder before the Office of the Office of the Ombudsman which then conducted a preliminary investigation. After having been served with the complaint and its supporting documents, respondents filed their respective counter-affidavits.
Estrada thereafter filed a Request to be Furnished with Copies of Counter-Affidavits of the Other Respondents, Affidavits of New Witnesses and Other Filings. The Ombudsman denied his request contending that, under Ombudsman rules, a respondent is not entitled to be furnished with such copies except the complaint and its supporting documents.
Without seeking for reconsideration, Estrada assailed the said resolution arguing that his rights to due process have been violated.
ISSUE:
Did the Ombudsman act with grave abuse of discretion in denying Senator Estrada's request?
HELD:
No, the Ombudsman's denial of Estrada's request did not constitute grave abuse of discretion and did not violate Sen. Estrada’s constitutional right to due process.
