The Supreme Court upheld the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause against Senator Jinggoy Estrada, John Raymund de Asis, and Janet Lim Napoles for plunder and graft, emphasizing the broad discretion afforded to the Ombudsman in prosecuting criminal complaints against public officials. This decision reinforces the principle that a preliminary investigation only requires evidence showing a crime was likely committed, without needing absolute certainty or evidence sufficient for conviction, thus allowing cases to proceed to trial where the accused can fully exercise their rights.

PDAF Scandal Unveiled: Did the Ombudsman Abuse Discretion in Estrada’s Indictment?

This consolidated case examines whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause to indict Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada, John Raymund de Asis, and Janet Lim Napoles for plunder and violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, related to the misuse of Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF). The central legal question revolves around the extent of judicial review permissible over the Ombudsman’s determination of probable cause, balancing the need to combat corruption with protecting individual rights against unfounded accusations.

The Supreme Court’s consistent policy is to maintain non-interference in the Ombudsman’s determination of probable cause, recognizing its broad powers under both the Constitution and Republic Act 6770. The Court acknowledges the Ombudsman’s expertise in assessing evidence and defers to its sound judgment, unless grave abuse of discretion is evident. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction, which must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by law.

Probable cause, in this context, is defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted. It requires evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and was committed by the suspects, demanding more than bare suspicion but less than evidence which would justify conviction. The elements of the crime charged should be present. The court has stated that “only facts sufficient to support a *prima facie* case against the [accused] are required, not absolute certainty.”

In determining probable cause, the elements of the crime charged should be present, but not definitively established, enough that their presence becomes reasonably apparent. It was further added that:

[O]wing to the nature of preliminary investigations, the “technical rules of evidence should not be applied” in the course of its proceedings, keeping in mind that “the determination of probable cause does not depend on the validity or merits of a party’s accusation or defense or on the admissibility or veracity of testimonies presented.” Thus, in *Estrada v. Ombudsman (Estrada)*, the Court declared that since a preliminary investigation does not finally adjudicate the rights and obligations of parties, “probable cause can be established with hearsay evidence, as long as there is substantial basis for crediting the hearsay.”

The petitioners were charged with plunder and violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019. Plunder, defined and penalized under Section 2 of RA 7080, as amended, has the following elements:

1. That the offender is a public officer, who acts by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons;
2. That he amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt or criminal acts described in Section 1(d) hereof; and
3. That the aggregate amount or total value of the ill-gotten wealth amassed, accumulated, or acquired is at least Fifty Million Pesos (P50,000,000.00).

On the other hand, the elements of violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 are:

1. That the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial, or official functions (or a private individual acting in conspiracy with such public officers);
2. That he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence; and
3. That his action caused undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge of his functions.

The Court analyzed the evidence presented by the Ombudsman, including the testimonies of whistleblowers, affidavits, business ledgers, and COA reports. The Court found that the Ombudsman did not abuse its discretion in finding probable cause to indict Estrada, as the elements of the crimes charged were reasonably apparent based on the evidence on record. The Court emphasized that a preliminary investigation is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the prosecution’s evidence; and the presence or absence of the elements of the crime charged is evidentiary in nature and is a matter of defense that may be passed upon only after a full-blown trial on the merits.

The Court also addressed the arguments raised by Justice Velasco in his dissent, specifically regarding the admissibility and credibility of the evidence used by the Ombudsman. The Court reiterated its stance that technical rules on evidence should not be rigidly applied during preliminary investigations, and that probable cause can be established with hearsay evidence, as long as there is substantial basis for crediting the hearsay.

Therefore, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, upholding the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause against all the petitioners. The case will proceed to trial, where the guilt or innocence of the accused will be determined based on the evidence presented.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause to indict Senator Estrada, de Asis, and Napoles for plunder and graft, and the extent of judicial review over the Ombudsman’s determination.
What is probable cause in this context?	Probable cause exists when facts and circumstances would lead a reasonable person to believe the accused committed the crime, requiring more than suspicion but less than evidence for conviction. It implies probability of guilt determined in a summary manner.
Can hearsay evidence be used to establish probable cause?	Yes, hearsay evidence can be used to establish probable cause during a preliminary investigation as long as there is a substantial basis for crediting the hearsay. It is because the preliminary investigation does not finally adjudicate the rights and obligations of parties.
What is the role of the Ombudsman in prosecuting public officials?	The Ombudsman has broad powers to investigate and prosecute criminal complaints against public officials and government employees. The office is considered the champion of the people and preserver of the integrity of public service.
What is the *res inter alios acta* rule, and does it apply here?	The *res inter alios acta* rule states that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by the act, declaration, or omission of another. The Supreme Court ruled that technical rules on evidence, including the *res inter alios acta* rule, should not be rigidly applied in preliminary investigation.
What is plunder, according to Philippine law?	Plunder is committed when a public officer, by himself or in connivance with others, amasses ill-gotten wealth of at least P50 million through a combination or series of illegal acts. These acts include misappropriation, receiving kickbacks, or taking undue advantage of official position.
What is Section 3(e) of RA 3019?	Section 3(e) of RA 3019 prohibits public officers from causing undue injury to any party or giving any private party unwarranted benefits through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. It penalizes corrupt practices by public officers in the performance of their functions.
What was the effect of the Ombudsman’s findings?	The Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause allowed the case to proceed to trial before the Sandiganbayan. The accused is given a chance to defend themselves, and the courts will then proceed to hear the evidence.
What was De Asis’s role in the case?	De Asis was a driver, messenger, and janitor for Napoles and allegedly assisted in the fraudulent processing and releasing of PDAF funds. He was also designated as president/incorporator of a Napoles-controlled NGO.
Who is Janet Lim Napoles in the case?	Napoles is the central figure of the PDAF scandal. She is the alleged mastermind of the operation, facilitating the transfer of PDAF and creating non-governmental organizations for the purpose.

This decision reinforces the considerable deference given to the Ombudsman’s judgment in determining probable cause, underscoring the importance of allowing corruption cases to proceed to trial. It affirms the principle that a preliminary investigation is not a trial, and that technical rules of evidence should not unduly hinder the prosecution’s ability to present its case. Future cases involving public corruption are likely to rely on this ruling as precedent for upholding the Ombudsman’s discretion.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada, et al. v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 212761-62, July 31, 2018