Facts:
This consolidated case involves petitions for certiorari filed by Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada, John Raymund de Asis, and Janet Lim Napoles, challenging the Office of the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause to indict them for Plunder and for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, related to the misuse of Senator Estrada’s Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) for the years 2004 to 2012. The charges arose from two complaints: the NBI Complaint (OMB-C-C-13-0313) filed by the National Bureau of Investigation and Atty. Levito D. Baligod on September 16, 2013, and the FIO Complaint (OMB-C-C-13-0397) filed by the Field Investigation Office of the Ombudsman on November 18, 2013. Both complaints accused the petitioners of illegally funneling PDAF funds to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) controlled by Napoles, from which Senator Estrada allegedly received substantial commissions or kickbacks. After a series of procedural steps and the submission of counter-affidavits by Estrada (De Asis and Napoles failed to submit theirs), the Ombudsman issued a Joint Resolution on March 28, 2014, and a subsequent Joint Order on June 4, 2014, affirming the finding of probable cause against the petitioners, among others. Estrada filed motions for reconsideration and supplemental petitions asserting political persecution and violation of his constitutional rights, which were denied, prompting the filing of the current petitions before the Supreme Court.
Issues:
1. Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause against Estrada, De Asis, and Napoles for Plunder and for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019.
2. Whether Estrada’s constitutional rights were violated in the process leading to the Ombudsman’s determination.
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court found no merit in the petitions, holding that the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause to indict the petitioners. The Court emphasized that the Ombudsman, as an independent constitutional body, has broad discretion in determining the existence of probable cause. The Court also noted that it generally refrains from interfering with the Ombudsman’s findings, except in cases of grave abuse of discretion, which was not evident in this situation. Additionally, the Court found that Estrada’s claims of political persecution and violation of his constitutional rights lacked merit and substantiation.
Doctrine:
The decision reiterates the doctrine that the determination of probable cause for the purpose of filing criminal information lies within the full discretion of the Ombudsman. Such discretion, when exercised properly, is not subject to judicial review unless there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion. Furthermore, probable cause is established when there is sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof.
Class Notes:
– Probable Cause: Defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested.
– Grave Abuse of Discretion: Pertains to capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, or despotic exercise of power due to passion or personal hostility amounting to an evasion of a positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.
– Section 3(e) of RA 3019: Prohibits public officers from causing any undue injury to any party, including the government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.
Historical Background:
The case presents a significant instance in the ongoing efforts to combat corruption within the Philippine government, particularly addressing the misuse of legislators’ PDAF allocations. It underscores the role of the Ombudsman in investigating and prosecuting government officials accused of corrupt practices and the judicial system’s checks on the Ombudsman’s exercise of its prosecutorial powers.
Leave a Reply