Quiambao v. Desierto
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Enrico P. Quiambao was the Provincial Administrator of Pampanga. The Provincial Government, headed by Governor Manuel M. Lapid, initiated a low-cost housing project. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan passed Resolutions authorizing the Governor to negotiate for land purchase and to enter into a loan contract with the Philippine National Bank (PNB) for P104 Million. A loan was secured from PNB, and a Deed of Absolute Sale was executed on November 3, 1997, for two parcels of land totaling 40 hectares, with a consideration of P104 Million. Petitioner Quiambao and Provincial Treasurer Jovito Sabado prepared and signed the check for P104 Million, payable to Abelardo Miranda, Jr., the sellers' attorney-in-fact. Governor Lapid signed the Deed of Sale as the province's representative. However, a second Deed of Absolute Sale was executed on November 17, 1997, by the sellers through Miranda, pegging the consideration at P5 Million and referencing a different mother title. This second deed was used for tax purposes. Vice-Governor Cielo Macapagal-Salgado and other Sangguniang Panlalawigan members requested an investigation into the land purchase. Procedural History: An Information for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 was filed against Governor Lapid, petitioner Quiambao, and Treasurer Sabado. An Amended Information was later filed before the Sandiganbayan, impleading other officials and private individuals. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Ombudsman's Memorandum recommending the filing of the Amended Information. The Ombudsman disapproved the Special Prosecutor's recommendation for dismissal and denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, seeking to annul the Ombudsman's actions and enjoin the prosecution, alleging grave abuse of discretion in disapproving the recommendation for dismissal and denying his motion for reconsideration, and arguing that there was no probable cause against him.
Issue(s)
Whether the Ombudsman gravely abused his discretion in finding probable cause for and sanctioning the filing of an Information against petitioner Enrico P. Quiambao for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the Ombudsman did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause and sanctioning the filing of an Information against petitioner and his co-accused for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (R.A. No. 3019). Probable cause, as defined in Raro v. Sandiganbayan and Pilapil v. Sandiganbayan, is the existence of facts and circumstances that would excite the belief, in a reasonable mind, that the person charged was guilty of the crime. This does not require actual and positive cause or absolute certainty but is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief, without an inquiry into the sufficiency of evidence for conviction. The Court emphasized that the existence or lack of bad faith, undue injury, and other elements of the crime are evidentiary in nature and pertain to factual matters that cannot be conclusively threshed out during the preliminary investigation stage, but rather during a full-blown trial where the prosecution can present its evidence. The Court rejected petitioner's argument of purely ministerial participation, noting the magnitude of the transaction should have put all officials on guard to prevent provincial disadvantage, citing the alleged implications on provincial funds and potential tax evasion through the second Deed of Sale. The Court, citing The Presidential Ad-Hoc Fact Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Ombudsman Aniano Desierto and Kuizon v. Desierto, consistently adopted a policy of non-interference in preliminary investigations, providing sufficient latitude of discretion to the Ombudsman's investigating prosecutor. The Court stated that the prosecution of offenses committed by public officers is vested in the Ombudsman, and to insulate the office, the Constitution and R.A. No. 6770 have endowed it with wide investigatory and prosecutory powers, virtually free from intervention. Ultimately, the discretion to determine whether a case should be filed rests with the Ombudsman, and absent compelling reasons to the contrary, their findings of probable cause deserve great respect.
Main Doctrine
The Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause and sanctioning the filing of an Information for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, as the existence or lack of bad faith and the injury caused are evidentiary matters to be determined during trial. A public officer's participation, even if ministerial, requires vigilance in transactions of significant magnitude to prevent disadvantage to the government.