JOSEPH E. ESTRADA vs. hostile headlines to discharge his burden of proof.

He needs to show
ANIANO DESIERTO, in his capacity as Ombudsman, RAMON
GONZALES, VOLUNTEERS AGAINST CRIME AND
CORRUPTION, GRAFT FREE PHILIPPINES FOUNDATION,
INC., LEONARD DE VERA, DENNIS FUNA, ROMEO
CAPULONG and ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR.
G.R. No. 146710-15 March 2, 2001
FACTS: On October 4, 2000, petitioner then President of
the Republic of the Philippines Joseph Ejercito Estrada was accused
by Ilocos Sur Governor, Luis "Chavit" Singson of receiving millions
of pesos from jueteng lords.
The exposẻ immediately ignited reactions of rage. The next day,
October 5, 2000, Senator Teofisto Guingona, Jr., then the Senate
Minority Leader, took the floor and delivered a fiery privilege speech
entitled "I Accuse." He accused the petitioner of receiving some P220
million in jueteng money from Governor Singson from November
1998 to August 2000. He also charged that the petitioner took from
Governor Singson P70 million on excise tax on cigarettes intended for
Ilocos Sur. The privilege speech was referred by then Senate President
Franklin Drilon, to the Blue Ribbon Committee (then headed by
Senator Aquilino Pimentel) and the Committee on Justice (then headed
by Senator Renato Cayetano) for joint investigation.
Petitioner now contends that the respondent Ombudsman should be
stopped from conducting the investigation of the cases filed against
him due to the barrage of prejudicial publicity on his guilt. He submits
that the respondent Ombudsman has developed bias and is all set to
file the criminal cases in violation of his right to due process.
more weighty social science evidence to successfully prove the
impaired capacity of a judge to render a bias-free decision. Well to
note, the cases against the petitioner are still undergoing preliminary
investigation by a special panel of prosecutors in the office of the
respondent Ombudsman. No allegation whatsoever has been made by
the petitioner that the minds of the members of this special panel have
already been infected by bias because of the pervasive prejudicial
publicity against him. Indeed, the special panel has yet to come out
with its findings and the Court cannot second guess whether its
recommendation will be unfavorable to the petitioner.
The records show that petitioner has instead charged respondent
Ombudsman himself with bias. To quote petitioner's submission, the
respondent Ombudsman "has been influenced by the barrage of slanted
news reports, and he has buckled to the threats and pressures directed
at him by the mobs." News reports have also been quoted to establish
that the respondent Ombudsman has already prejudged the cases of the
petitioner and it is postulated that the prosecutors investigating the
petitioner will be influenced by this bias of their superior.
Again, the evidence proffered by the petitioner is insubstantial. The
accuracy of the news reports referred to by the petitioner cannot be the
subject of judicial notice by this Court especially in light of the denials
of the respondent Ombudsman as to his alleged prejudice and the
presumption of good faith and regularity in the performance of official
duty to which he is entitled.

ISSUE: WON newspaper publications can deprive an accused of his

due process right to fair trial.

RULING: No.

In Martelino, et al. vs. Alejandro, et al., the Court held that to warrant
a finding of prejudicial publicity there must be allegation and
proof that the judges have been unduly influenced, not simply that they
might be, by the barrage of publicity. In the case at bar, we find nothing
in the records that will prove that the tone and content of the publicity
that attended the investigation of petitioners fatally infected the
fairness and impartiality of the DOJ Panel.

Petitioners cannot just rely on the subliminal effects of publicity on the

sense of fairness of the DOJ Panel, for these are basically unbeknown
and beyond knowing. To be sure, the DOJ Panel is composed of an
Assistant Chief State Prosecutor and Senior State Prosecutors. Their
long experience in criminal investigation is a factor to consider in
determining whether they can easily be blinded by the klieg lights of
publicity. Indeed, their 26-page Resolution carries no indubitable
indicia of bias for it does not appear that they considered any extra-
record evidence except evidence properly adduced by the parties. The
length of time the investigation was conducted despite its summary
nature and the generosity with which they accommodated the
discovery motions of petitioners speak well of their fairness. At no
instance, we note, did petitioners seek the disqualification of any
member of the DOJ Panel on the ground of bias resulting from their
bombardment of prejudicial publicity.

Applying the above ruling, there is not enough evidence to warrant

this Court to enjoin the preliminary investigation of the petitioner
by the respondent Ombudsman. Petitioner needs to offer more than