Saturday, February 20, 2016

THE TECHNICAL RULES OF EVIDENCE SHOULD BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED DURING THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION.





In the case of  WILFREDO M. TRINIDAD vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN THRU THE OMBUDSMAN SIMEON V. MARCELO AND DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN VICTOR C. FERNANDEZ, ASIA’S EMERGING DRAGON CORPORATION, AND THE SANXXXNBAYAN PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, En Banc, G.R. No. 166038, November 4, 2007, the Supreme Court, among other things, held that “at the preliminary investigation, determination of probable cause merely entails weighing of facts and circumstances, relying on the calculus of common sense, without resorting to the calibrations of technical rules of evidence.”  THUS:

 “x x x.

As for petitioner’s objection to the admissibility of documents culled from various proceedings like the legislative hearings before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee and the arbitration proceedings before the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) International Court of Arbitration in ICC Case No. 12610/TE/MW, it is premature to raise the same.

First, there is no showing from the above-quoted pertinent portion of its assailed Resolution that the Office of the Ombudsman relied on those documents in support of its findings.  At the preliminary investigation, determination of probable cause merely entails weighing of facts and circumstances, relying on the calculus of common sense, without resorting to the calibrations of technical rules of evidence.  It is not the proper forum to determine the alleged breach by the OSG of the rule on confidentiality of arbitration proceedings as provided under the ICC Internal Rules and Republic Act No. 9285 (Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004).

X x x.