Presidential Commission on Good Government v. Desierto
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) charged Herminio T. Disini with bribing the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos to favor individuals and corporations in the negotiation, award, and implementation of contracts for the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP) project. The PCGG alleged that Disini acted as a go-between for Westinghouse Electric Corporation and Burns & Roe, receiving multimillion-dollar bribes and unlawful commissions. Disini, a close associate of Marcos and physician to Imelda Marcos, allegedly assured Westinghouse and Burns & Roe that he could influence Marcos to award them contracts, leading to the reversal of decisions favoring other companies like Ebasco. Subcontracts were allegedly awarded to companies owned or with beneficial interests in Disini and Marcos, such as Power Contractors Inc. (PCI) and Ecco-Asia. Procedural History: The Office of the Ombudsman, through Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto, dismissed the charges against Disini for lack of prima facie evidence and denied the PCGG's motion for reconsideration. The Ombudsman cited a lack of testimonial and documentary evidence, unauthenticated documents, and insufficient proof of Disini's ownership or Marcos's business interests in certain corporations. The Petition: The PCGG filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, alleging that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by capriciously and arbitrarily dismissing the charges despite sufficient evidence to establish probable cause.
Issue(s)
Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the criminal charges against Herminio T. Disini for lack of prima facie evidence. Whether the evidence presented by the PCGG was sufficient to engender a well-grounded belief that an offense had been committed and that Disini was probably guilty thereof.
Ruling
The Petition is GRANTED. The Resolution and Order of the Office of the Ombudsman dismissing the charges against Herminio T. Disini are SET ASIDE. The Ombudsman is DIRECTED to file the appropriate criminal charge(s) against him in the proper court.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman: The Supreme Court held that the Ombudsman's power to dismiss criminal complaints is not absolute and can be reviewed by the Supreme Court when exercised with grave abuse of discretion. The Court found that the Ombudsman gravely abused his discretion by arbitrarily dismissing the charges against Disini, demonstrating a whimsical and capricious exercise of judgment. This was evidenced by the Ombudsman's disregard of substantial evidence presented by the PCGG, such as the affidavits of Samuel Hull Jr. and Angelo Manahan, which provided direct and categorical statements regarding Disini's involvement. The Court emphasized that a preliminary investigation is not the venue for the full display of evidence but for establishing probable cause, and the Ombudsman's failure to consider the totality of evidence presented was a clear misappreciation of facts. On the sufficiency of evidence to establish probable cause: The Supreme Court found that the PCGG presented sufficient evidence to engender a well-founded belief that a crime had been committed and that Disini was probably guilty. This evidence included the affidavits of Hull and Manahan, detailing Disini's role as a go-between, his assurances to Westinghouse and Burns & Roe, and the alleged agreement for commissions. The Court also considered telexes, aides-memoire, handwritten notations by Marcos, correspondences, and documents showing objections from government officials to the PNPP contract, as well as evidence of Disini's corporations and their financial transactions. The Court rejected the Ombudsman's grounds for dismissal, such as the lack of authentication for documents and the absence of direct testimonial evidence from banks, stating that these matters are better ventilated during trial. The Court concluded that the totality of the evidence presented was more than sufficient to support a criminal complaint for corruption of public officials in relation to bribery and violation of the Anti-Graft Law.
Main Doctrine
The Office of the Ombudsman's power to dismiss criminal complaints is not absolute and can be reversed by the Supreme Court if exercised with grave abuse of discretion, particularly through gross misappreciation of evidence, even at the preliminary investigation stage. The Court may direct the filing of charges if sufficient evidence exists to engender a well-grounded belief that an offense has been committed and the accused is probably guilty.