Ombudsman’s Probable Cause Finding Stands Unless Grave Abuse of Discretion is Shown

MARIO L. RELAMPAGOS, ROSARIO S. NUÑEZ, LALAINE N. PAULE, AND MARILOU D. BARE, PETITIONERS, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, RESPONDENT. G.R. NOS. 231161 and 231584, December 07, 2022

Imagine public funds vanishing into thin air, meant for livelihood projects but ending up lining private pockets. This is the grim reality behind many corruption cases in the Philippines, often involving the misuse of Priority Development Assistance Funds (PDAF). The Supreme Court case of Relampagos v. Office of the Ombudsman sheds light on the extent of the Ombudsman’s power in determining probable cause in such cases, and the high bar required to overturn their findings.

This case revolves around allegations of corruption involving Janet Lim Napoles and several government officials, specifically concerning the PDAF allocation of former Davao del Sur Representative Douglas R. Cagas. The central legal question is whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause to indict these individuals for violation of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and malversation under the Revised Penal Code.

Understanding Probable Cause and the Ombudsman’s Role

In the Philippine legal system, probable cause is a crucial element in determining whether a criminal case should proceed to trial. It refers to 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 charged. It doesn’t require absolute certainty, but rather a reasonable belief based on available evidence.

The Office of the Ombudsman is an independent body tasked with investigating and prosecuting public officials for offenses such as graft and corruption. This office plays a vital role in ensuring accountability in governance. One of its primary functions is to conduct preliminary investigations to determine if probable cause exists to file criminal charges before the Sandiganbayan, a special court for cases involving public officials.

The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019), Section 3(e), states that it is unlawful for any public officer to:

“Cause any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or give 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.”

Malversation, as defined under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, involves the misappropriation of public funds or property by a public officer who has custody or control over them by reason of their office.

For example, imagine a government employee in charge of procuring supplies for a public school. If this employee colludes with a supplier to purchase overpriced goods, causing financial loss to the government, they could be held liable for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 and malversation.

The Case Unfolds: PDAF, NGOs, and Allegations of Corruption

The case began with whistleblower Benhur Luy, who revealed a complex scheme involving Janet Lim Napoles and the alleged misuse of PDAF. Luy and other whistleblowers claimed that Napoles created several NGOs to serve as conduits for diverting PDAF funds from government projects.

Here’s a simplified breakdown of the alleged scheme:

• Napoles would negotiate with a lawmaker for a commission, ranging from 40% to 60% of the project cost.
• The lawmaker would request the release of their PDAF allocation.
• Napoles’ employees would follow up with the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) for the release of the Special Allotment Release Order (SARO).
• The lawmaker would endorse Napoles-controlled NGOs to the implementing agency.
• The implementing agency would enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with the NGO and release the funds, often without proper due diligence.
• No project would be implemented, and Napoles would pocket the remaining funds after deducting commissions for the lawmaker and other involved officials.

In this specific case, former Davao del Sur Representative Douglas R. Cagas allegedly allocated PHP 16 million of his PDAF to livelihood projects through Napoles-controlled NGOs. The Ombudsman found probable cause to indict Cagas, Napoles, and several DBM officials, including Mario L. Relampagos, Rosario S. Nuñez, Lalaine N. Paule, and Marilou D. Bare.

The Ombudsman believed that these officials acted in conspiracy, with the DBM officials expediting the release of SAROs to favor Napoles’ NGOs. The Ombudsman’s investigation relied heavily on the testimonies of whistleblowers, Commission on Audit reports, and other documentary evidence.

The procedural journey of the case involved:

1. The National Bureau of Investigation filing a complaint before the Ombudsman.
2. The Ombudsman directing the accused to file counter-affidavits.
3. The Ombudsman issuing a Consolidated Resolution finding probable cause.
4. The filing of Motions for Reconsideration, which were denied.
5. The filing of Petitions for Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court quoted the Sandiganbayan, stating:

“The determination of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not, a crime has been committed and there is enough reason to believe that it was committed by the accused.”

The Supreme Court emphasized that it would not interfere with the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause unless there was a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion. The Court held that matters of defense and admissibility of evidence are irrelevant for purposes of preliminary investigation.

In this case, the Supreme Court stated:

“Given that there was already a judicial determination of probable cause of the Sandiganbayan involving the PHP 16-million PDAF of Cagas diverted through Special Allotment Release Order Nos. ROCS-07-03351 and ROCS-07-00046, the instant Petition assailing the Ombudsman’s determination of probable cause has already been mooted.”

Practical Implications and Key Lessons

This ruling reinforces the independence and broad discretionary powers of the Ombudsman in investigating and prosecuting corruption cases. It highlights the difficulty of overturning the Ombudsman’s findings of probable cause, emphasizing that the Court will only intervene in cases of grave abuse of discretion.

For public officials, this case serves as a stern reminder of the importance of transparency and accountability in handling public funds. It underscores the potential consequences of involvement in schemes that divert funds from their intended beneficiaries.

Key Lessons:

• The Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause is generally respected by the courts.
• Grave abuse of discretion is a high bar to overcome when challenging the Ombudsman’s decisions.
• Public officials must exercise due diligence and avoid any appearance of impropriety in handling public funds.

Consider a hypothetical situation: A barangay captain approves a project to build a new community center, but awards the contract to a construction company owned by their relative without conducting a proper bidding process. Even if the community center is eventually built, the barangay captain could still face charges of violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019 due to the manifest partiality shown in awarding the contract.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is the role of the Ombudsman in corruption cases?

A: The Ombudsman is responsible for investigating and prosecuting public officials for offenses such as graft and corruption.

Q: What does probable cause mean in a legal context?

A: Probable cause is the existence of facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that an offense has been committed.

Q: How difficult is it to overturn the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause?

A: It is very difficult. The courts generally defer to the Ombudsman’s discretion unless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion.

Q: What is grave abuse of discretion?

A: Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.

Q: What are the elements of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019?

A: The elements are: (1) the accused is a public officer; (2) they acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and (3) their action caused undue injury to any party or gave unwarranted benefits to a private party.

Q: What is malversation under the Revised Penal Code?

A: Malversation involves the misappropriation of public funds or property by a public officer who has custody or control over them.

Q: What should a public official do if they suspect corruption within their agency?

A: They should immediately report their suspicions to the appropriate authorities, such as the Ombudsman or the Commission on Audit.

ASG Law specializes in criminal defense for public officials and government employees. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.