People v. Relampagos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Following the disclosure of the "pork barrel scam" or "PDAF scam," the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) filed a complaint against then Congressman Constantino G. Jaraula and several public officers, including Mario L. Relampagos, Marilou D. Bare, Rosario S. Nuñez, and Lalaine N. Paule (Relampagos, et al.), who were assigned to the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), for malversation of public funds and violation of Section 3 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, among other offenses. The scheme involved the utilization of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) allocated to members of Congress, allegedly facilitated by Janet Lim Napoles and her controlled non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Specifically, for Criminal Case Nos. SB-15-CRM-0017 and SB-15-CRM-0020, the subject was PDAF allocation covered by Special Allotment Release Order (SARO) No. ROCS-07-05450, amounting to P9,600,000.00, which was allegedly coursed through the Technology Resource Center (TRC) to a Napoles-controlled NGO, Countrywide Agri and Rural Economic Development Foundation, Inc. (CARED). Procedural History: The Ombudsman, in a Joint Resolution dated September 26, 2014, found probable cause against Relampagos, et al. for three counts of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and three counts of malversation of public funds. Relampagos, et al. filed a consolidated motion for reconsideration, arguing their limited participation. The Ombudsman denied the motion. Consequently, Informations were filed before the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan, however, deferred the determination of probable cause against Relampagos, et al. for the cases involving SARO No. ROCS-07-05450, ordering the prosecution to produce a copy of the SARO. Upon submission of the SARO, the Sandiganbayan, in its Resolution dated May 13, 2015, dismissed Criminal Case Nos. SB-15-CRM-0017 and SB-15-CRM-0020 against Relampagos, et al. for lack of probable cause, finding that the SARO was signed by DBM Secretary Rolando G. Andaya, Jr., and that Relampagos, et al. had no participation therein. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion for partial reconsideration filed by the People of the Philippines and Relampagos, et al. in its Resolution dated July 9, 2015. The Petition: The People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Ombudsman, filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking to nullify the Sandiganbayan's Resolutions that dismissed the criminal cases against Relampagos, et al. for lack of probable cause. Petitioner argued that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion by (A) dismissing the cases for lack of probable cause, encroaching upon the executive function of the prosecution, and (B) summarily dismissing the cases based on a single piece of evidence while disregarding other evidence presented by the prosecution, such as the affidavit of Benhur Luy and the COA Special Audits Office Report No. 2012-03.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal cases against respondents Relampagos, et al. for lack of probable cause. Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to assail the Sandiganbayan's resolution dismissing the criminal cases.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed the Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan dated May 13, 2015, and July 9, 2015, which dismissed Criminal Case Nos. SB-15-CRM-0017 and SB-15-CRM-0020 against respondents Mario L. Relampagos, Marilou D. Bare, Rosario S. Nuñez, and Lalaine N. Paule for lack of probable cause.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Sandiganbayan's authority to determine probable cause and the merits of its finding: The Supreme Court clarified that while the Ombudsman has the executive function to determine probable cause for the filing of an information, the Sandiganbayan, upon the filing of the case, gains full control and has the authority to judicially determine probable cause and dismiss the case if it finds no sufficient ground to issue warrants of arrest. This is a judicial determination, distinct from the executive determination. The judge is mandated to personally determine the existence of probable cause after evaluating the prosecutor's resolution and supporting evidence. The Sandiganbayan acted within its competence when it ordered the prosecution to submit the SARO and, upon examination, found that Relampagos, et al. likely did not participate in its preparation and issuance, thus dismissing the cases for lack of probable cause. The Supreme Court found that the Sandiganbayan did not err in dismissing the cases against Relampagos, et al. for lack of probable cause concerning SARO No. ROCS-07-05450. The primary basis for the indictment was the alleged participation of Relampagos, et al. in the preparation and issuance of the SAROs. However, the SARO in question was factually found to have been signed and issued by then DBM Secretary Rolando G. Andaya, Jr., not by Relampagos, et al. The Court noted that the Ombudsman's demonstration of how Relampagos, et al. allegedly expedited the preparation and release of this specific SARO was limited. Unlike in other cases where their office was involved in the issuance of SAROs and NCAs, there was a dearth of allegation or finding as to how Relampagos, et al. could have participated in or expedited the preparation and issuance of SAROs emanating from the Office of the Secretary itself. Therefore, their participation concerning SARO No. ROCS-07-05450 was deemed highly improbable, justifying the dismissal for want of probable cause. On the propriety of the remedy: The Supreme Court held that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy to assail a final order of the Sandiganbayan that disposes of a case, such as the dismissal of criminal cases for lack of probable cause, when an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 is available. Section 7 of Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended by R.A. No. 7975, provides that decisions and final orders of the Sandiganbayan are appealable to the Court by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. The availability of an appeal, being speedy and adequate, proscribes a certiorari petition under Rule 65. The Court noted that the petitioner filed the petition beyond the reglementary period for appeal, further barring the remedy. Even if the Court were to consider the petition as one for review under Rule 45, the period to appeal had already expired.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court clarified that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy to assail a final order of the Sandiganbayan that disposes of a case, such as the dismissal of criminal cases for lack of probable cause, when an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 is available. The Court also affirmed that the Sandiganbayan has the authority to judicially determine probable cause and may dismiss a case if it finds no sufficient ground to issue warrants of arrest, even if the Ombudsman has previously found probable cause, provided such action is not tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that errors of judgment by the Sandiganbayan do not necessarily constitute grave abuse of discretion.