GR 164664; (July, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 164664 ; July 20, 2006
CARLOS C. FUENTES, petitioner, vs. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, et al., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Carlos Fuentes, a sales representative, supplied dump trucks and contracted bulldozing services for the Municipality of Baganga under the previous administration. The transactions were approved by then-Mayor Remegio Nazareno and other municipal officers. Upon assumption of office, newly elected Mayor Gerry Morales and Municipal Treasurer Francisco Jimenez, Jr. withheld payment for the remaining obligations, citing the need to review the transactions for legality. Fuentes subsequently withdrew the supporting vouchers from the municipal office and filed an administrative complaint with the Ombudsman, alleging violations of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
The Ombudsman found probable cause and filed an Information against Morales and Jimenez before the Sandiganbayan. However, upon motion for reinvestigation, the Sandiganbayan ordered a special audit by the Commission on Audit (COA). The COA report found no overpricing or manifest partiality in the transactions but noted procedural irregularities. Based on this, the Special Prosecutor moved to withdraw the Information for lack of probable cause, which the Sandiganbayan granted. Fuentes filed this petition for certiorari, challenging the withdrawal.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the prosecution’s motion to withdraw the Information for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 .
RULING
The petition is denied. The Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The ruling is anchored on the principle that the determination of probable cause is primarily an executive function vested in the prosecutor. The court’s role is limited to reviewing whether the prosecutor acted with grave abuse of discretion. Here, the Special Prosecutor’s recommendation to withdraw was based on the COA’s special audit report, which found no evidence of overpricing, bad faith, or manifest partiality—essential elements for a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 . The audit merely noted procedural lapses, which do not constitute the criminal offense charged.
The Sandiganbayan correctly accorded respect to the prosecutor’s finding of lack of probable cause, as it was supported by substantial evidence from the COA. The withdrawal was without prejudice to further investigation for other possible violations, indicating a prudent exercise of discretion. The Court found no capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary act in the Sandiganbayan’s resolution affirming the prosecutor’s motion. Consequently, the assailed resolutions were affirmed.