Pontejos v.

Desierto
GR No. 148600
July 7, 2009
Article 3
FACTS:
In this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, petitioner seeks to set aside the
decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of respondent Aniano Desierto as
Ombudsman, who found petitioner guilty of grave misconduct and ordered his dismissal.
On August 26, 1998, the Housing and Land Regulatory Board (HLURB) received a Notice
of Appeal filed by Rasemco Inc. represented by its president Restituto Aquino, decided by
Arbiter Pontejos, petitioner herein. Aquino asked for the nullification of all the proceedings
conducted before the petitioner for alleged extortion, bribery and graft and corruption, the
petitioner allegedly in conspiracy with Imperial and Atos both of HLURB and Ngo, and officer
of Hammercon. Aquino claims that they demanded and received monetary consideration in
exchange for a favorable decision, issuing a license despite a known impediment. HLURB
created a fact-finding committee to deal with the complaint, and during their investigation
Aquino filed an administrative complaint with the Ombudsman. The accused denied the
allegations, Pontejos adding that it is nothing more than a disgruntled losing party seeking to
gain leverage. Eventually the committee of the HLURB referred their report to the Ombudsman.
Respondent Aniano Desierto placed Pontejos under preventive suspension for six months
without pay but eventually after finding probable cause to commence trial he was convicted of
estafa and direct bribery while his fellow accused, Imperial and Ngo were acquitted while Atos
was extended immunity as state witness. Petitioner moved to reconsider with the Ombudsman
which was denied. It was then forwarded to the CA which the appellate court also denied.
ISSUE(S):
1. Whether or not the CA erred in not declaring that the proceedings before the Ombudsman
were tainted with ill-motives.
2. Whether or not the CA erred in not declaring improper the grant of immunity to Atos.
3. Whether or not the CA erred in not declaring that the petitioner was denied of his right to
due process by the Ombudsman.
HELD:
1. No
Petitioner argues that HLURB commissioner Teresita Desierto, the spouse of Ombudsman
Desierto allegedly harbored resentment against him for signing a Manifesto issue by some
lawyers in the HLURB. This led him to conclude that the Commissioner is the unseen hand
behind the filing of the criminal cases, and that the proceedings before the Ombudsman were
tainted with ill-motives. The court rejected this argument for petitioner based his theories on
mere speculations and conjectures. He presented no evidence that would prove the
Prepared by: Jo-Anne Coloquio

Commissioners interference in the proceedings, or even that she bore a grudge against the
petitioner.
2. No.
It is constitutionally permissible for Congress to vest the prosecutor with the power to
determine who can qualify as a witness and be granted immunity from prosecution as long as the
following requisites are present: There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused
whose discharge is requested; There is no other direct evidence available for the proper
prosecution of the offense committed, except the testimony of said accused; The testimony of
said accused can be substantially corroborated in its material points; Said accused does not
appear to be the most guilty; and said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense
involving moral turpitude. The fact that an individual had not been previously charged or
included in an information does not prevent the prosecution from utilizing said person as a
witness. In the case at bar, the unjust favoritism was not proven so the grant of immunity to Atos
is justified.
3. No.
Petitioner alleges that he was not furnished a copy of the Affidavit of Atos, so he was not
afforded the opportunity to challenge the allegations in the affidavit, violating his right to due
process. Contrary to his assertion, the records show that petitioner eventually received a copy of
the Affidavit. He even challenged it in hi motion for reinvestigation and requested a
reconsideration. His right was clearly not violated for he was given the opportunity to be heard
and he availed it.
Petitioner also contends that the fact that he was not able to confront Aquino who failed to
appear in two hearings, also constitutes as a violation of his right to due process. He alleges that
the absence of Aquino can be a ground for the dismissal of the case. He insists that no
substantial evidence existed to hold him liable and the Ombudsman only relied on the affidavits
of Atos and the subordinates of Aquino. The court ruled that in an administrative context,
proceedings followed in the courts of justice are not required. When the respondent is afforded
the opportunity to be heard there is no violation of the right to due process. A formal type of
hearing is not always necessary as long as the respondent was given the opportunity to present
his side, which is what happened in the case at bar. The petitioner was given ample time to
prepare his defense. He was even able to seek reconsideration through his appeals. He had the
opportunity to be heard, present his case and to submit his evidence. Even the absence of Aquino
in some hearings does not affect the fact that he was accorded due process. Respecting the
findings of the Ombudsman, there is substantial evidence to warrant herein petitioners
dismissal.

Prepared by: Jo-Anne Coloquio