Cambe v. Office of the Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case involves the systematic pillaging of public funds sourced from the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) of Senator Ramon 'Bong' Revilla, Jr. (Revilla) from 2006 to 2010, totaling approximately P517,000,000.00. The scheme involved the diversion of PDAF allocations to 'ghost' projects through Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) controlled by Janet Lim Napoles (Napoles). Revilla allegedly authorized the utilization of his PDAF through endorsement letters to various Implementing Agencies (IAs), which then funneled the funds to Napoles's NGOs. In exchange, Revilla, through his Chief of Staff Richard A. Cambe (Cambe), allegedly received kickbacks or commissions amounting to at least P224,512,500.00. Procedural History: The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and the Field Investigation Office (FIO) of the Ombudsman filed complaints for Plunder (RA 7080) and violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019. On March 28, 2014, the Ombudsman issued a Joint Resolution finding probable cause to indict Revilla, Cambe, Napoles, and others. Petitioners filed various motions to suspend the preliminary investigation, claiming prejudicial questions and the need for a final Commission on Audit (COA) report, all of which were denied. Informations were filed with the Sandiganbayan, which subsequently issued warrants of arrest after judicially determining probable cause. The Petition: Petitioners filed consolidated petitions for certiorari under Rule 65, assailing the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause. Revilla and Cambe argued that their signatures were forged, that the whistleblower testimonies were inadmissible hearsay under the res inter alios acta rule, and that their due process rights were violated because they were not furnished with the counter-affidavits of their co-respondents. DBM officials Relampagos, et al., argued they were merely performing ministerial duties in releasing Special Allotment Release Orders (SAROs).
Issue(s)
Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause for Plunder and violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019. Whether the claims of forgery and the res inter alios acta rule preclude a finding of probable cause during preliminary investigation. Whether the failure to furnish petitioners with copies of their co-respondents' counter-affidavits violated their right to due process. Whether a final COA audit disallowance is a condition precedent to the filing of criminal charges.
Ruling
The Supreme Court DISMISSED all petitions and AFFIRMED the findings of probable cause against all petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1 (Probable Cause): The Court held that the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion because the finding of probable cause was supported by substantial evidence, including PDAF documents, whistleblower testimonies, and COA reports. Probable cause only requires facts sufficient to support a prima facie case, not absolute certainty. The complex scheme involving the diversion of funds to ghost projects and the receipt of kickbacks ostensibly satisfied the elements of Plunder and Graft. The Court emphasized its policy of non-interference with the Ombudsman's prosecutorial discretion. The aggregate amount of ill-gotten wealth alleged (P224.5M) far exceeded the P50M threshold for Plunder. On Issue 2 (Evidence/Forgery): The Court ruled that technical rules of evidence, such as the res inter alios acta rule and the hearsay rule, are not binding during preliminary investigations. Whistleblower testimonies are admissible as they provide a detailed account of the conspiracy and are independently relevant. Claims of forgery are evidentiary matters that are better ventilated during a full-blown trial rather than at the preliminary investigation stage. The Ombudsman's naked-eye comparison of signatures was sufficient for a prima facie determination. The Court noted that even if signatures were forged, they could have been authorized by the legislators to provide 'plausible deniability.' On Issue 3 (Due Process): The Court clarified that there is no law or rule requiring the Ombudsman to furnish a respondent with copies of the counter-affidavits of co-respondents. Under Rule 112, Section 3(b) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the respondent only has the right to examine evidence submitted by the complainant. Furthermore, the Ombudsman eventually granted the petitioners' requests to be furnished with these documents and allowed them to comment, thereby curing any perceived procedural defect. Due process is satisfied by the mere opportunity to be heard. On Issue 4 (COA Precedent): The Court held that criminal and administrative cases are distinct and may proceed independently. A Commission on Audit (COA) audit disallowance is not a condition precedent to the filing of a criminal complaint for Plunder or Graft. Section 6, Rule XIII of the 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure of the COA does not impose any such delimitation. The criminal case before the Ombudsman is separate from the proceedings on disallowance before the COA. Therefore, the lack of a final COA order did not render the criminal complaints premature.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court maintains a policy of non-interference with the Office of the Ombudsman's determination of probable cause, absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion. Probable cause for the purpose of filing a criminal information does not require absolute certainty or evidence that would justify a conviction; it merely requires facts sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof. Furthermore, technical rules of evidence, including the hearsay rule and the res inter alios acta rule, are not strictly applicable during preliminary investigations, as these proceedings are merely inquisitorial and do not finally adjudicate the rights of the parties.