Cabahug v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns a negotiated contract for the purchase of 46,000 units of Topaz Monobloc Armchairs by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) Region XI, represented by petitioner Susana B. Cabahug, from Rubber Worth Industries Corporation (RWIC) for P495.00 per unit, inclusive of delivery costs. The contract was approved by DECS Secretary Ricardo T. Gloria. However, a supplier, Jesusa T. de la Cruz, objected, alleging the chairs were overpriced by P5,000,000.00 and that the transaction violated Republic Act No. 3019. This led to a complaint filed before the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao. Procedural History: The Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao, through Graft Investigation Officer Jovito A. Coresis, Jr., recommended the filing of an Information against petitioner Cabahug for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019, while dismissing the case against Secretary Gloria and Undersecretary Nachura. An Information was subsequently filed with the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner Cabahug filed a motion for reconsideration with the Office of the Special Prosecutor, which was initially granted, leading to a recommendation for dismissal by Special Prosecution Officer II Cicero D. Jurado, Jr. However, Ombudsman Aniano Desierto disagreed and ordered prosecution to proceed. Petitioner then filed a Motion for Re-determination of Existence of Probable Cause with the Sandiganbayan, which was denied and treated as a second motion for reconsideration. A subsequent motion for reconsideration of this denial was also denied, leading to the present petition. The Petition: Petitioner Susana B. Cabahug filed a petition for Certiorari and/or Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order, assailing the Sandiganbayan's orders denying her motions for re-determination of probable cause. She argues that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion by denying her motion, which sought to address the conflicting findings within the Office of the Ombudsman. Petitioner contends that the Office of the Special Prosecutor found no probable cause, while the Ombudsman disagreed, and that the evidence does not support a finding of bad faith or gross negligence on her part, especially since she acted under the directives of her superiors. She asserts that further prosecution constitutes harassment and a denial of due process.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's Motion for Re-determination of Existence of Probable Cause and her subsequent Motion for Reconsideration. Whether there exists probable cause to prosecute petitioner for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Sandiganbayan is ORDERED to forthwith DISMISS Criminal Case No. 23458.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Sandiganbayan's denial of the Motion for Re-determination of Existence of Probable Cause: The Supreme Court held that while the determination of probable cause is primarily the function of the prosecution (Ombudsman), courts may interfere when there is grave abuse of discretion. The Sandiganbayan's denial of the petitioner's motion, which highlighted the conflicting findings within the Ombudsman's office, constituted such grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that the preliminary investigation is meant to shield the innocent from precipitate prosecution, and the Sandiganbayan should have reviewed the evidence when faced with such conflicting findings. The denial, treating the motion as a prohibited second motion for reconsideration, was deemed arbitrary and oppressive, violating due process. On the existence of probable cause for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019: The Supreme Court found no probable cause against the petitioner. The Court reiterated the principle that good faith is always presumed, and bad faith must be proven. The records showed that the Office of the Special Prosecutor, after thorough review, recommended dismissal, finding no bad faith or gross negligence on the part of the petitioner. This conclusion was concurred in by higher-ranking officials within the Office of the Special Prosecutor. The Court noted that the petitioner acted pursuant to memoranda and directives from her superiors, Secretary Gloria and Undersecretary Nachura, who were themselves cleared of charges. The evidence indicated that the negotiated contract was entered into after proper consultations and with the approval of higher authorities, and that the price was not demonstrably overpriced given the circumstances, particularly RWIC's status as an exclusive distributor. The Court concluded that the elements of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, namely evident bad faith, gross inexcusable negligence, or undue injury to the government, were not present.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court may interfere with the Ombudsman's investigatory powers when there is grave abuse of discretion, such as when the finding of probable cause is clearly without basis, to prevent oppression and shield the innocent from precipitate prosecution. The Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in proceeding with the trial when the evidence clearly showed no probable cause against the petitioner.