People v. Borje
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute arose from alleged anomalies and illegal disbursements within the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) concerning the repair of DPWH-owned motor vehicles and equipment. An investigation revealed that during the period of March 2001 to December 2001, emergency repairs, approved and paid for by the government, were not actually conducted, resulting in a loss of approximately P139,000,000.00. A criminal complaint was subsequently filed with the Office of the Ombudsman. Procedural History: Following the complaint, an Information was filed with the Sandiganbayan accusing several DPWH officials and private individuals of the crime of Plunder. The accused filed responsive pleadings assailing the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause. The Sandiganbayan, in a Resolution dated January 20, 2005, dismissed the case for lack of probable cause, ruling that not all elements of the crime were present, specifically that the accused Borje had not amassed the required amount of ill-gotten wealth. This dismissal was upheld when the Sandiganbayan denied the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration in a Resolution dated October 12, 2005. The Petition: The People of the Philippines, as petitioner, filed a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse the Sandiganbayan's resolutions. The petitioner argued that the determination of probable cause for filing an information is an executive function vested solely in the prosecution and that the Office of the Ombudsman is not bound by the findings of administrative bodies. They contended that the Sandiganbayan should have deferred to the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause and that the Sandiganbayan prematurely made a determinative finding on the elements of the crime before a full trial on the merits.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the Information for plunder for alleged lack of probable cause. Whether the Sandiganbayan correctly ruled that not all elements of the crime of plunder were present, specifically the element of amassing ill-gotten wealth of at least ₱50 million.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan dated January 20, 2005, and October 12, 2005, and affirmed the Resolution dated January 7, 2004, of the Ombudsman finding probable cause to indict the respondents for the crime of plunder.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Sandiganbayan's dismissal for lack of probable cause: The Court reiterated the distinction between executive and judicial determination of probable cause. Executive determination, which ascertains whether a criminal case should be filed, pertains to the public prosecutor, who has broad discretion. Judicial determination ascertains whether a warrant of arrest should be issued. For crimes cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, the determination of probable cause during preliminary investigation is a function of the Office of the Ombudsman. Courts generally do not interfere with the Ombudsman's discretion in this regard, as it is based on respect for the constitutional and statutory powers granted to the office and for practicality. The Court will only interfere if the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause was done in a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, evidencing a clear case of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In this case, the Ombudsman found probable cause, and the filing of the Information was not arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or despotic. The records showed that accused Borje, Jr. was the payee of numerous checks amounting to ₱82,321,855.38 for supposed anomalous repairs, and the mere fact that his name appeared on the checks was sufficient to establish probable cause, even if there was evidence suggesting the funds went to private suppliers. Whether he was guilty of plunder was a matter for trial on the merits. On the Sandiganbayan's premature finding of absence of elements of the crime: The Court held that it was premature for the Sandiganbayan to make a determinative finding prior to the presentation of evidence that there was no bad faith, manifest partiality, or undue injury. The presence or absence of the elements of a crime is evidentiary and is a matter of defense to be passed upon after a full-blown trial. The purpose of a preliminary investigation is not to determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but to ascertain if there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof. The Sandiganbayan's act of dismissing the case based on its own assessment of the evidence at the preliminary investigation stage, rather than deferring to the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause, constituted grave abuse of discretion. The Court also noted that the difference between the Ombudsman's findings and those of the initial investigating committee did not, in itself, constitute grave abuse of discretion, as the Ombudsman was merely performing its mandated duty.
Main Doctrine
The determination of probable cause for the filing of an information is an executive function vested in the Office of the Ombudsman, and the Sandiganbayan cannot dismiss a case for lack of probable cause unless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.