G.R. No. 214747 . July 18, 2022.
NEMIA T. MAGALUNA, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN (MINDANAO), ET AL., AND NICASIO E. SULAPAS, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Former Sangguniang Bayan (SB) member Nicasio Sulapas filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao against petitioners, who were SB members and officials of General Luna, Surigao del Norte. The complaint alleged they falsified SB Resolution Nos. 3 and 4, series of 2004, which certified certain lots as barangay sites. Sulapas claimed these resolutions were never discussed or approved during the SB’s February 23, 2004 session, as they were absent from the official minutes. He further alleged the resolutions were submitted to the DENR without the municipal mayor’s approval and contained discrepancies regarding the attendance of SB members.
The Ombudsman’s Fact-Finding Investigation Unit (FFIU) conducted an inquiry. The SB Secretary submitted an affidavit stating the resolutions were not in the office records and were not reflected in the session minutes. However, the DENR later submitted original copies of the contested resolutions to the FFIU. Based on its review, the FFIU terminated the fact-finding and recommended a preliminary investigation for falsification of public documents. The Ombudsman subsequently found probable cause and filed Informations against petitioners. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. They then filed this Petition for Certiorari, arguing the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause to indict petitioners for falsification of public documents.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion in the Ombudsman’s determination of probable cause. The Court emphasized that a finding of probable cause merely requires sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the accused is probably guilty. It is based on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime was committed by the suspect. This standard does not demand clear and convincing evidence of guilt, only a reasonable belief based on the facts and circumstances.
The Court held that the Ombudsman’s finding was supported by the evidence on record, including the sworn complaint, the SB Secretary’s affidavit attesting to the irregularities, and the original resolutions themselves which contained discrepancies. The Ombudsman correctly appreciated these pieces of evidence during the preliminary investigation. The Court reiterated that it does not interfere with the Ombudsman’s exercise of its investigatory and prosecutory powers absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, which amounts to a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Petitioners failed to demonstrate such abuse. The Ombudsman’s resolution was based on its evaluation of the submitted evidence and was within its constitutional mandate. Therefore, the petition was denied for lack of merit.