MANUEL C. ROXAS, et al. vs. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, et al. [G.R. No. 114944, May 29, 2002]

FACTS:

          Petitioner Roxas was the Chairman, while Nacpil was a Member, of the Bids and Awards Committee of the Philippine Constabulary-Integrated National Police (PC-INP). The PC-INP invited bids for the supply of sixty-five units of fire trucks. The Bids and Awards Committee voted to award the contract to the Tahei Co., Ltd., manufacturer of Nikko-Hino. Accordingly, the contract was executed between PC-INP and Tahei Co.

                The COA subsequently discovered that there was a discrepancy in the amounts indicatedon the disbursement voucher and the purchase order. Consequently, the DILG Secretary f iled a complaint with the Ombudsman against the respondents.

                After preliminary investigation, the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military recommended the indictment of all respondents, except Ramirez. On review, the Office of the Special Prosecutor r e c o m m e n d e d   t h e   d i s m i s s a l   o f   t h e   c o m p l a i n t s   a g a i n s t   R o x a s ,   N a c p i l ,  C o d o y ,   K a i r a n   a n d R a m i r e z .   F o r m a l c h a r g e s   w e r e   f i l e d   w i t h   t h e S a n d i g a n b a y a n   a g a i n s t   N a z a r e n o , F l o r e s ,   Tanchanco, Custodio, Osia, Espeña and Santos. Petitioners were not  included in the criminal  information. Flores and

                Tanchanco moved for a reinvestigation, which was granted. Thereafter, the Office of the Special Prosecutor recommended the dismissal of the charges against Flores and Tanchanco. In the same resolution, however, the Special Prosecutor made a sudden turn about as regards Roxas, Nacpil and Kairan, and ordered their inclusion as accused.

ISSUE:

                Whether or not the inclusion of the petitioners as accused violated their right to due process.

HELD:

                YES. It appears that the charge against respondents was previously dismissed. For this reason, there being no motion or reconsideration filed by the complainant, said respondents ceased to be parties. Consequently, the mere filing of motions for reconsideration by those previously indicted, without questioning the dismissal of the charge against the said respondents, could not and should not be made the basis for impleading them as accused in this case without violating their right to due process. Furthermore, it appears that petitioners were deprived of due process when the Special Prosecutor reinstated the complaint against them without their knowledge. Due process of law requires that every litigant must be given an opportunity to be heard. He has the right to be present and defend himself in person at every stage of the proceedings.