GR 118533; (October, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. No. 118533 . October 4, 1995.
MAYOR PABLO R. OLIVAREZ, petitioner, vs. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN (Second Division) and the HON. OMBUDSMAN, Special Prosecutor ANIANO DESIERTO and Deputy Special Prosecutor JOSE DE G. FERRER, respondents.
FACTS
The Baclaran Credit Cooperative, Inc. (BCCI) charged Mayor Pablo Olivarez of Parañaque with violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The complaint alleged that the Mayor, with manifest partiality and evident bad faith, unjustly refused to issue a mayor’s permit to BCCI to operate a night fair as authorized by a municipal council resolution. BCCI claimed it made several written requests. In contrast, Mayor Olivarez countered that BCCI never formally applied for a permit with the proper municipal office, rendering his inaction proper. The Ombudsman’s office, after a preliminary investigation and a subsequent reinvestigation, found probable cause and filed an information under Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 with the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan denied the Mayor’s motion to strike out the information, prompting him to file this petition for certiorari and prohibition.
ISSUE
Whether the Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause to prosecute Mayor Olivarez for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that the determination of probable cause is an executive function primarily vested in the Ombudsman. Judicial review of such findings is limited to checking for arbitrariness or caprice. The Ombudsman’s finding was based on substantial evidence: BCCI’s written requests constituted a sufficient application, and the Mayor’s duty to act on them was clear under the Local Government Code. His refusal, coupled with his subsequent grant of a similar permit to another group, created reasonable grounds to suspect partiality or bad faith. The Court reiterated that it is not a trier of facts and will not re-evaluate the evidence in a certiorari proceeding absent a clear showing of grave abuse, which was not present. The arguments raised by the petitioner pertained to the factual appreciation of evidence, which is beyond the scope of certiorari.