Budiongan v. Dela Cruz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Municipal Ordinance No. 2, series of 2001, appropriated P450,000.00 for a road roller. On November 16, 2001, the Municipal Development Council recommended realigning these funds for asphalt laying. This realignment was discussed but deferred by the Sangguniang Bayan. On February 6, 2002, the Municipal Treasurer issued a Certificate of Availability of Funds. The Municipal Engineer prepared a Program of Works, approved by the Municipal Budget Officer and Mayor Budiongan. Bidding was conducted on March 5, 2002, and the Notice of Award was issued to Herbert Malmis General Merchandise and Contractor, Inc. on March 6, 2002. The Sangguniang Bayan passed Resolution No. 60, authorizing Mayor Budiongan to enter into a contract for P339,808.00, after which Malmis commenced work. Subsequently, on May 17, 2002, Ordinance No. 8 was passed, approving the fund realignment. Malmis was paid on June 14, 2002. Procedural History: Private respondents filed a complaint alleging illegality in the bidding, award, and notice to commence work due to the absence of an appropriated fund. The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Visayas found probable cause and recommended filing an information for violation of Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code. Upon review, the Office of the Special Prosecutor modified the charge to violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 against all petitioners and Section 3(h) of R.A. No. 3019 against Mayor Budiongan. Two Informations were filed before the Sandiganbayan. Petitioners moved to quash the information for Section 3(e), which was granted, and the case was remanded for amendment. An Amended Information was filed, alleging undue injury to the government due to premature awarding and payment without proper appropriation. The Sandiganbayan admitted the Amended Information. Petitioners moved for leave to file a motion for reinvestigation, which was denied for Criminal Case No. 28076 but granted for Criminal Case No. 28075, allowing them to file a motion for reconsideration with the Office of the Special Prosecutor. The motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioners assailed the Memorandum and Resolution of the Office of the Special Prosecutor, arguing grave abuse of discretion in rejecting the Graft Investigating Officer's findings, amending the resolution, filing the Information without affording them a reinvestigation, and denying their right to due process. They also questioned the finding of probable cause for violation of R.A. No. 3019.
Issue(s)
Whether the modification of the offense charged from technical malversation to violation of R.A. No. 3019 without a new preliminary investigation violates the petitioners' right to due process. Whether the Office of the Special Prosecutor and the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause for violation of Section 3(e) and 3(h) of R.A. No. 3019.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The assailed Memorandum of the Office of the Special Prosecutor, Office of the Ombudsman, dated April 28, 2004, finding probable cause that petitioners violated Sections 3(e) and 3(h) of Republic Act No. 3019, and the Resolution dated October 19, 2005, denying petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration, are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners were not deprived of due process. The Court emphasized that the right to a preliminary investigation is a statutory right, not a constitutional one, and its absence does not impair the validity of an Information or the court's jurisdiction. The modification of the charge did not come as a surprise because it was based on the same set of facts and illegal acts previously addressed by the petitioners in their counter-affidavits. Applying People v. Buluran, the Court held that the right to a preliminary investigation is deemed waived when an accused fails to invoke it before or at the time of entering a plea at arraignment. Since Budiongan and the other petitioners had already been arraigned in the Sandiganbayan, they are precluded from questioning the lack of a new preliminary investigation. Furthermore, the petitioners failed to present newly discovered evidence or allege serious irregularities that would warrant a reinvestigation under the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman. On Issue 2: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the determination of probable cause by the public respondents. Following the ruling in Webb v. De Leon, the Court noted that a finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and was committed by the suspect. It does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt or absolute certainty of guilt. The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) is an integral component of the Ombudsman (OMB) and acts under its supervision and control. Generally, courts should not interfere with the Ombudsman's discretionary powers to prosecute or dismiss a complaint. Since the petitioners failed to show any arbitrariness or patent illegality in the prosecutor's finding, the Court must defer to the executive determination of the existence of probable cause.
Main Doctrine
The right to a preliminary investigation is statutory, not constitutional, and its absence does not impair the validity of an Information or affect the court's jurisdiction. The modification of a charge, if based on the same set of facts, does not violate due process if the accused had the opportunity to refute the charges. The determination of probable cause is primarily a function of the prosecutor, and courts generally defer to such findings absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion.