In People v. Sandiganbayan, the Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s authority to independently assess probable cause, even reversing the Ombudsman’s findings. This decision underscores the judiciary’s vital role in protecting individuals from unwarranted criminal charges. It emphasizes that courts must actively ensure that sufficient evidence exists before proceeding with a case, safeguarding against potential abuses of power and upholding the constitutional rights of the accused. This ruling serves as a crucial check on prosecutorial discretion, reinforcing the principle that justice requires a thorough and impartial evaluation of evidence at every stage of the legal process.

PDAF and Due Diligence: Can the Sandiganbayan Overturn Ombudsman Findings?

The case revolves around allegations of misuse of Priority Development Assistance Funds (PDAF), more popularly known as pork barrel funds, involving several government officials. Specifically, Mario L. Relampagos, Marilou D. Bare, Rosario S. Nuñez, and Lalaine N. Paule (collectively, Relampagos, et al.), were implicated in the diversion of funds through a scheme involving non-governmental organizations (NGOs) controlled by Janet Lim Napoles. The Ombudsman initially found probable cause to indict Relampagos, et al. for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and for malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). This finding stemmed from their alleged involvement in processing Special Allotment Release Orders (SAROs) and Notices of Cash Allocation (NCAs) related to the PDAF of then Congressman Constantino G. Jaraula.

However, the Sandiganbayan, upon reviewing the evidence, dismissed the criminal cases against Relampagos, et al. concerning SARO No. ROCS-07-05450. The anti-graft court based its decision on the fact that the SARO in question was signed by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Secretary, Rolando G. Andaya, Jr., and not by Relampagos, et al. This led the Sandiganbayan to conclude that there was insufficient evidence to establish probable cause against them for the specific charges related to that SARO. The People, represented by the Ombudsman, then filed a petition for certiorari, arguing that the Sandiganbayan had overstepped its authority by reversing the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause and disregarding other evidence that implicated Relampagos, et al. in the broader scheme. The Supreme Court then had to decide whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion when it reversed the finding of probable cause by the Ombudsman and consequently dismissed the criminal cases against Relampagos, et al. insofar as the PDAF allocation covered by SARO No. ROCS-07-05450 is concerned.

The Supreme Court underscored the distinction between the executive and judicial determination of probable cause. The executive branch, through the Ombudsman, initially determines probable cause during the preliminary investigation, which informs the filing of a criminal information. However, the judiciary exercises its own independent assessment of probable cause before issuing a warrant of arrest, ensuring that there is a reasonable basis for depriving an individual of their liberty. This judicial function is enshrined in the Constitution, which mandates that a judge must personally determine the existence of probable cause after evaluating the prosecutor’s resolution and supporting evidence.

The Court cited Section 5(a), Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, which outlines the options available to a court upon the filing of a criminal complaint or information. The court can immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause, issue a warrant of arrest if it finds probable cause, or order the prosecutor to present additional evidence if there is doubt about the existence of probable cause. The Sandiganbayan, in this case, chose to examine the SARO in question, and upon finding that it was not signed by Relampagos, et al., dismissed the cases against them. This action was deemed within its competence and jurisdiction, as it reflected a personal determination of probable cause based on the available evidence.

The Court emphasized that the Sandiganbayan did not err in finding that no probable cause existed to indict Relampagos, et al. concerning SARO No. ROCS-07-05450. The prosecution argued that the Sandiganbayan failed to consider other evidence, such as the affidavit of Benhur Luy, identifying Relampagos, et al. as contacts within the DBM who expedited the release of SAROs and NCAs, and COA SAO Report No. 2012-03, which found that the SAROs and NCAs were hastily released despite the absence of required documents. The Supreme Court, however, noted that the basis for including Relampagos, et al. in the criminal cases was their alleged participation in the preparation and issuance of the SAROs. Because the SARO in question was signed by the DBM Secretary and not by Relampagos, et al., the court found that the prosecution’s case lacked a sufficient foundation.

“SEC. 5. When warrant of arrest may issue. — (a) By the Regional Trial Court. — Within ten (10) days from the filing of the complaint or information, the judge shall personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. He may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause. If he finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment order when the complaint or information was filed pursuant to Section 6 of this Rule. In case of doubt on the existence of probable cause, the judge may order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within five (5) days from notice and the issue must be resolved by the court within thirty (30) days from the filing of the complaint or information.”

Building on this principle, the Court explained that the Ombudsman’s resolution and joint order demonstrated limited evidence of how Relampagos, et al. expedited the preparation and release of SARO No. ROCS-07-05450. The Ombudsman’s findings suggested that Relampagos, et al. processed the SAROs and NCAs pertaining to Jaraula’s PDAF projects and that their partiality was evident because the processing of the requisite SAROs and NCAs in Relampagos’s office were expedited through the assistance provided by Nuñez, Paule, and Bare. However, these findings were primarily linked to SAROs signed and issued by the Office of the Undersecretary for Operations. There was a lack of clear evidence showing how Relampagos, et al. could have participated in or expedited the preparation and issuance of SAROs originating from the Office of the Secretary, making their involvement in SARO No. ROCS-07-05450 highly improbable.

Moreover, the Court emphasized the importance of protecting individuals from unwarranted criminal charges. Citing Principio v. Judge Barrientos, the Court reiterated the policy of non-interference in the Ombudsman’s exercise of its constitutionally-mandated powers, while also balancing this with the purpose of preliminary investigation to secure the innocent against hasty, malicious, and oppressive prosecution, and to protect the State from useless and expensive trials. The Court cautioned that “where the evidence patently demonstrates the innocence of the accused, x x x [there is] no reason to continue with his prosecution; otherwise, persecution amounting to grave and manifest injustice would be the inevitable result.”

The Supreme Court ultimately held that the Sandiganbayan did not gravely abuse its discretion in reversing the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause. The Court’s decision reinforces the judiciary’s role as a safeguard against potential abuses of power and ensures that individuals are not subjected to unwarranted criminal prosecutions. By upholding the Sandiganbayan’s authority to independently assess probable cause, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the importance of due process and the protection of constitutional rights in the Philippine legal system.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in reversing the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause and dismissing the criminal cases against respondents for lack of evidence.
What is a Special Allotment Release Order (SARO)?	A SARO is a document issued by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) authorizing the release of funds for specific projects or programs. It essentially earmarks funds from a particular budget for a designated purpose.
What is probable cause?	Probable cause is a reasonable ground for belief in the existence of facts warranting the proceedings complained of. It is more than mere suspicion but less than evidence that would justify a conviction.
What is the role of the Ombudsman in this case?	The Ombudsman is responsible for investigating and prosecuting cases of corruption and abuse of power by public officials. In this case, the Ombudsman initially found probable cause to indict the respondents.
What is the Sandiganbayan?	The Sandiganbayan is a special court in the Philippines that handles cases involving graft and corruption committed by public officials. It has jurisdiction over cases involving high-ranking government officials.
Why did the Sandiganbayan dismiss the cases against the respondents?	The Sandiganbayan dismissed the cases because it found that the SARO in question was not signed by the respondents, indicating a lack of direct involvement in the alleged misuse of funds.
What did the Supreme Court rule in this case?	The Supreme Court ruled that the Sandiganbayan did not gravely abuse its discretion in reversing the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause and dismissing the cases. It affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s authority to independently assess probable cause.
What is the significance of this ruling?	This ruling reinforces the judiciary’s role as a check on executive power and ensures that individuals are protected from unwarranted criminal prosecutions. It also underscores the importance of due process and the need for sufficient evidence before proceeding with a criminal case.

This case highlights the importance of judicial review in safeguarding against potential abuses of power and ensuring that individuals are not subjected to unwarranted criminal prosecutions. The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirms the judiciary’s role as a vital check on the executive branch and underscores the importance of due process in the Philippine legal system.

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: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, V. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION), MARIO L. RELAMPAGOS, MARILOU D. BARE, ROSARIO S. NUÑEZ AND LALAINE N. PAULE, RESPONDENTS., G.R. Nos. 219824-25, February 12, 2019