Sombero v. Office of the Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute arose from a law enforcement operation at the Fontana Leisure Park and Casino, leading to the apprehension of 1,316 undocumented Chinese nationals engaged in illegal online gambling. Following this, multiple complaints were filed with the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB). One complaint, filed by Wenceslao A. Sombero, Jr. (Sombero), targeted Bureau of Immigration (BI) Deputy Commissioners Al C. Argosino and Michael B. Robles for violation of R.A. No. 3019. Another complaint, filed by Charles T. Calima, Jr., also charged Argosino and Robles with violations of R.A. No. 3019 and R.A. No. 7080. A third complaint, filed by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), implicated Argosino, Robles, Calima, Sombero, and Jack Lam in direct bribery, receiving gifts, violation of R.A. No. 3019, and PD 46. The core of these complaints revolved around allegations that Sombero facilitated a bribe of P50 Million to Argosino and Robles in exchange for the release of the detained Chinese nationals. Procedural History: The three complaints were consolidated by the OMB. After preliminary investigation, the OMB issued a Consolidated Resolution on October 23, 2017, finding probable cause to indict Sombero, Argosino, Robles, Calima, and Lam for various offenses including Plunder, Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, Direct Bribery, and Violation of PD 46. Subsequently, upon motions for reconsideration, the OMB issued a Consolidated Order on November 23, 2017, modifying its earlier resolution by dropping the charges against Calima. The OMB concluded that Argosino and Robles, in conspiracy with Sombero, amassed ill-gotten wealth totaling P50 Million intended as a bribe. The OMB found Calima's actions to be part of a counter-intelligence operation. Thereafter, the OMB filed an Information before the Sandiganbayan charging Argosino, Robles, and Sombero with violation of R.A. No. 7080. The Petition: Sombero filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the Supreme Court, seeking to annul the OMB's Consolidated Resolution and Order. He argued that the OMB committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in finding probable cause to charge him with Plunder, contending that the elements of the crime, specifically the series of overt acts and the identification of a main plunderer, were not met. Sombero also asserted that his right to due process was violated because the initial complaint was for violation of R.A. No. 3019, but the OMB ultimately found probable cause for Plunder (R.A. No. 7080). The Supreme Court, however, found no grave abuse of discretion, holding that the OMB's findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the issues raised by Sombero were matters best ventilated during a full-blown trial.
Issue(s)
Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in finding probable cause to charge petitioner with Plunder. Whether petitioner's constitutional right to due process was violated.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the Petition for Certiorari for lack of merit and affirmed the Consolidated Resolution dated October 23, 2017, and Consolidated Order dated November 23, 2017, of the Office of the Ombudsman. The Court also referred petitioner's Urgent Motion for Provisional Release from Detention due to COVID-19 to the Sandiganbayan for appropriate action.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause for Plunder: The Court ruled in the negative. It emphasized that certiorari is an extraordinary writ not demandable as a matter of right and requires a clear and convincing showing of grave abuse of discretion. The Ombudsman is empowered to act on criminal complaints against public officials with a wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutory prerogatives, and the Supreme Court exercises restraint in interfering with these functions. The OMB's finding of probable cause requires only substantial evidence, not absolute certainty of guilt, meaning enough relevant evidence to support a belief that the accused most likely committed the crime charged. The Court found that the OMB's finding of probable cause for violation of R.A. No. 7080 against Sombero, et al. was supported by substantial evidence. The elements of Plunder were present: (a) a public officer acting in connivance with others; (b) amassing ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt or criminal acts; and (c) an aggregate amount of at least P50 Million. The Court noted that Argosino and Robles were BI Deputy Commissioners, and they, in connivance with Sombero, came into possession of P50 Million through overt acts on November 27, 2016, in consideration for the release of detained Chinese nationals. The aggregate amount of P50 Million was established by affidavits and Robles' admission. The issue of a "main plunderer" was deemed premature at this stage, as it is an element to be identified in the Information, not necessarily in the OMB's resolution finding probable cause. On the issue of violation of the right to due process: The Court found Sombero's argument untenable. The Court reiterated the ruling in Enrile v. Salazar that there is nothing irregular in filing an indictment for an offense different from what was charged in the initial complaint, if warranted by the evidence developed during the preliminary investigation. The Ombudsman has ample discretion in determining not only sufficient evidence for probable cause but also the proper offense to be charged based on the submitted evidence. The Court also cited Galario v. Ombudsman, stating that the Ombudsman may investigate and prosecute on its own initiative. Therefore, the OMB's determination of probable cause was not arbitrary, and Sombero failed to show that the OMB capriciously or whimsically exercised its judgment. The Court concluded that the presence or absence of the elements of the crime charged, the validity of defenses, and the admissibility of evidence are matters best passed upon during a full-blown trial on the merits, not during a preliminary investigation.
Main Doctrine
The Office of the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause is generally given great weight and will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court unless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court's review is limited to the determination of whether the Ombudsman acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, and not to re-evaluate the evidence presented to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.