Yu v. Sandiganbayan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners, Municipal Mayor Remegio P. Yu, Municipal Vice-Mayor Michael S. Cosue, and Municipal Treasurer Julieta M. Fernandez, along with Rodolfo Macabunga, proprietor of Rosales Lumber and Hardware, were charged with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The charge stemmed from an alleged conspiracy to make it appear that 100 cubic meters of mixed gravel and sand, valued at P20,000.00, were delivered for the gravelling of the Rosales Public Market on October 1, 1993, when in fact no delivery was made. Procedural History: The Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon received the joint affidavit and criminal complaint. After requiring counter-affidavits and receiving an amended complaint dropping Macabunga, the Ombudsman, despite an investigator's recommendation for dismissal, found probable cause based on Macabunga's affidavit denying the delivery. An Information was filed with the Sandiganbayan. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, arguing that delivery was made, the check was received and encashed by Macabunga, and no damage was caused to the municipality. The Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan denied these motions. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with prohibition, assailing the Ombudsman's and Sandiganbayan's findings of probable cause as grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ruling that there was probable cause against petitioners. Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in sustaining the finding of probable cause of the Ombudsman.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. No costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion: The Court reiterated that the prosecution of offenses committed by public officers is vested in the Office of the Ombudsman. Courts have consistently refrained from interfering with the Ombudsman's exercise of its powers, respecting its initiative and independence. The rule is based on constitutional and practical considerations, preventing courts from being swamped by petitions questioning investigatory proceedings. The main function of a prosecutor during a preliminary investigation is to determine the existence of probable cause, defined as facts and circumstances that would excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the prosecutor's knowledge, that the person charged was guilty of the crime. In the absence of a clear abuse of discretion, courts will not interfere with the Ombudsman's discretion to either dismiss a complaint or proceed with it. The petitioners' arguments regarding the delivery of materials and the receipt of payment were matters of defense that should be presented during trial, not at the preliminary investigation stage. The Ombudsman's reliance on Macabunga's affidavit, despite conflicting evidence, did not constitute grave abuse of discretion as it was within the bounds of its investigative prerogative. On the issue of whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion: Similarly, the Court held that it could not say that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in finding the existence of probable cause and continuing with the trial of the case. The Sandiganbayan's role was to determine if probable cause existed to warrant trial. The petitioners' claims of actual delivery, supported by affidavits of market vendors and municipal engineers, and the alleged receipt and encashment of the payment check by Macabunga, were evidentiary matters that needed to be threshed out during the trial proper. The Ombudsman's finding of probable cause, even if debatable, did not automatically translate to grave abuse of discretion that would warrant judicial intervention at this stage. The Sandiganbayan's affirmation of this finding was therefore also not considered a grave abuse of discretion.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court will not interfere with the Ombudsman's determination of probable cause in the absence of a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion. Issues of fact and evidence are best ventilated during trial.