Relampagos v. Office of the Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Criminal complaints for Plunder, violation of Section 3(b), (e), (g), and (j), and Section 4 of RA 3019, RA 6713, and Article 172 of the RPC were filed against several public officers and private individuals, including petitioner Mario L. Relampagos. The charges stemmed from the alleged anomalous use and illegal diversion of P900 Million from the Malampaya Fund, allocated to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and channeled through 12 non-existent non-governmental organizations (NGOs) controlled by Janet Lim Napoles. The allegations were based on the sworn statement of Benhur K. Luy, who claimed to be the "lead employee" overseeing such projects, corroborated by other whistleblowers. Procedural History: The Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) issued a Joint Resolution dated December 19, 2016, finding probable cause against petitioner and others for two counts of Plunder, 97 counts of Malversation of Public Funds through Falsification of Public Documents, and 97 counts of violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019. Subsequently, a Joint Order dated August 30, 2017, modified the resolution by dismissing the Plunder case but recommending the filing of Informations for the 97 counts of malversation before the Sandiganbayan. The Petition: Petitioner Mario L. Relampagos filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, assailing the Joint Resolution and Joint Order, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman for finding probable cause against him despite the alleged lack of evidence and procedural irregularities.
Issue(s)
Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause against the petitioner. Whether the elements of Malversation of Public Funds through Falsification of Public Documents and violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 are present. Whether the allegation of conspiracy against the petitioner is baseless.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The Joint Resolution dated December 19, 2016, and Joint Order dated August 30, 2017, issued by the Office of the Ombudsman are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause: The Court reiterated the well-settled rule that it does not interfere with the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause, as this is a factual matter best left to the Ombudsman's expertise. The Ombudsman is granted wide latitude and the sole power to determine probable cause. Judicial scrutiny is only warranted upon a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, which requires more than mere disagreement with the findings. The Court found no such grave abuse of discretion, as the Ombudsman's determination was based on substantial evidence that engendered a reasonable belief of the petitioner's probable guilt. On the elements of Malversation of Public Funds through Falsification of Public Documents and violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019: The Court held that the determination of whether the elements of a crime are present is a matter of evidence best passed upon in a full-blown trial on the merits. A preliminary investigation does not require a full and exhaustive display of the prosecution's evidence. The Court found that the evidence presented during the preliminary investigation was sufficient to engender a reasonable belief that the petitioner was probably guilty of the crimes charged, and thus, the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause. On the allegation of conspiracy: The Court affirmed that it cannot interfere with the Ombudsman's discretion in determining the adequacy of evidence. The rule is that conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused, and direct evidence is not always necessary. The Court noted that the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause was based on substantial evidence, and the petitioner's argument that conspiracy requires "direct evidence" or "proof" of overt acts was not a sufficient ground to overturn the Ombudsman's determination.
Main Doctrine
The Court will not interfere with the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause, as it is a factual matter within the Ombudsman's expertise, unless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to a virtual refusal to perform a positive duty under the law. A finding of probable cause requires only evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and there is sufficient reason to believe the accused committed it, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.