Imingan v. Office of the Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Harry C. Dominguez filed an affidavit charging various individuals, including petitioner Abdon A. Imingan, with multiple counts of Estafa through Falsification of Public Documents, violations of RA 6713, and RA 3019. The charges stemmed from an alleged anomalous transaction involving the purchase of a Mitsubishi L300 Versa Van by the Provincial Government of Mt. Province for PhP999,000.00 from Ronald C. Kimakim. Dominguez alleged that the van was privately purchased by Helen Macli-ing for PhP756,000.00, and that various documents, including the Deed of Sale, Purchase Request, BAC resolutions, and Disbursement Voucher, were falsified to justify the inflated price and the transaction. Petitioner Imingan, as BAC Secretariat member, was implicated in the preparation of bid documents. Procedural History: The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) conducted an investigation and issued a Case Report recommending charges for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019. The case was endorsed to the Ombudsman, who directed the respondents, including petitioner, to file their counter-affidavits. Petitioner contended that changes in bid documents were made to reflect the intended purchase of an ambulance with equipment and accessories, not just a van. In a separate case (OMB-L-C-07-0106-A) involving the same transaction, the Ombudsman dismissed the charges for violation of RA 3019 and RA 9184 due to lack of specificity and corroborating evidence. However, this dismissal was not on the merits. On November 4, 2014, the Ombudsman issued a Resolution finding probable cause to charge petitioner and others with violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, dismissing other charges. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari, assailing the Ombudsman's Resolution, arguing that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause against him. He claimed no alterations were made to hide irregularities, that no injury was caused to the government, and that the dismissal of the prior case should have precluded the current charge.
Issue(s)
Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause against the petitioner for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019. Whether the dismissal of a prior related case (OMB-L-C-07-0106-A) bars the filing of the current charge. Whether the petitioner was denied due process.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Resolution dated November 4, 2014, of the Ombudsman in OMB-C-C-11-0107-C is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion: The Court held that the Ombudsman properly performed its duty in determining probable cause. The Ombudsman's finding was based on the NBI's report and the evidence presented, which indicated irregularities in the procurement process, including the modification of bid documents to reflect the purchase of an ambulance with equipment and accessories when the initial intent was for a basic van. The Ombudsman found that these irregularities, coupled with the fact that Ronald C. Kimakim was the sole bidder without clear basis for his selection, caused undue injury to the government and gave unwarranted benefits to Kimakim. The Court reiterated that probable cause requires only a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. On the effect of the dismissal of a prior related case: The Court ruled that the dismissal of OMB-L-C-07-0106-A did not bar the current charge. Firstly, the petitioner was not a party to the dismissed case. Secondly, the dismissal was not on the merits but due to the complainant's failure to specify the acts constituting the corrupt practices under Section 3 of RA 3019 and lack of corroborating evidence. The Court emphasized that a preliminary investigation is not a trial and its dismissal does not constitute a final judgment on the merits, thus, res judicata does not apply. On the issue of denial of due process: The Court found that the petitioner was not denied due process. The original affidavit of complaint explicitly charged him with violation of RA 3019, and the NBI report recommended the same. The Ombudsman's order directing the filing of counter-affidavits listed all charged offenses. Petitioner filed a counter-affidavit, acknowledging the charge for violation of RA 3019, thus having the opportunity to present his defense. Furthermore, he availed of his right to seek reconsideration of the Ombudsman's Resolution.
Main Doctrine
A finding of probable cause requires only such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof. It does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction, but merely that there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof.