Dichaves v. Office of the Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Two complaints for plunder and other offenses were filed in 2001 against petitioner Jaime Dichaves. The complaints alleged that Dichaves conspired with then-President Joseph Ejercito Estrada to amass ill-gotten wealth through the 'Jose Velarde' bank account. Specifically, Dichaves was accused of receiving P189.7 million in commissions from the purchase of Belle Corporation shares by the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) and the Social Security System (SSS), which was then deposited into the said account for Estrada's benefit. Procedural History: Following Estrada's impeachment, the Ombudsman filed a plunder case against him and several 'John Does,' one of whom was later identified as Dichaves. Dichaves left the Philippines before a warrant of arrest could be served. In 2007, the Sandiganbayan convicted Estrada of plunder. Dichaves resurfaced in 2010 and filed a Motion for Reinvestigation, which the Sandiganbayan granted. The Ombudsman conducted a preliminary investigation and, in a Joint Resolution dated March 14, 2012, found probable cause to charge Dichaves with plunder. His motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied. The Petition: Dichaves filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court, alleging that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion. He argued that the finding of probable cause was based on evidence from Estrada's impeachment and plunder trials, where he had no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, rendering such evidence hearsay and inadmissible against him. He contended that without this evidence, there was no probable cause to charge him.
Issue(s)
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause to charge petitioner Jaime Dichaves with the crime of plunder.
Ruling
The Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The March 14, 2012 Joint Resolution and February 4, 2013 Order of the Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-0-01-0211 and OMB-0-01-0291 are AFFIRMED in toto. The temporary restraining order previously issued is RECALLED and SET ASIDE. The Sandiganbayan is directed to immediately proceed with the arraignment and trial of petitioner Jaime Dichaves.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion: The Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman. The Court reiterated the well-established rule of non-interference with the Ombudsman's exercise of its investigatory and prosecutory powers. The determination of probable cause is an executive function, and judicial review is limited to instances where there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, defined as a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment. Petitioner failed to demonstrate such abuse. The Court emphasized that a respondent in a preliminary investigation does not have a constitutional right to cross-examine witnesses; this right only attaches during the trial proper. Petitioner's inability to cross-examine witnesses during Estrada's trial was his own fault, as he had fled the country to evade prosecution. Furthermore, the Ombudsman is not bound by the technical rules of evidence in determining probable cause, as only substantial evidence is required. The question of admissibility of evidence is premature at the preliminary investigation stage and is a matter to be resolved by the trial court. The Ombudsman's finding was based on substantial evidence, including affidavits and the circumstances surrounding the Belle Corporation share purchase, which were sufficient to establish a 'more likely-than-not' belief that a crime was committed and that the petitioner was probably guilty thereof.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court adheres to a policy of non-interference with the Office of the Ombudsman's exercise of its constitutional mandate to determine the existence of probable cause. This function is executive in nature and requires only substantial evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. Judicial intervention is warranted only upon a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction. A respondent in a preliminary investigation has no constitutional right to cross-examine the complainant's witnesses, as this right is statutory and fully attaches only during the trial proper.