G.R. No. 130319, October 21, 1998
Eriberto L. Venus, Petitioner, vs. Hon. Aniano Desierto, in his official capacity as Ombudsman; Sandiganbayan [Third Division]; Mars Regalado and Harry Abayon, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Eriberto L. Venus was the Municipal Mayor of New Washington, Aklan. On September 2, 1988, the Sangguniang Bayan (SB) passed Resolution No. 19, authorizing him to negotiate and enter into a contract with the Board of Liquidators for the acquisition of a specific lot (Garcia-Diapo Enterprise) scheduled for public bidding on September 19, 1988. Pursuant to this, Mayor Venus went to Manila, submitted a letter-proposal on behalf of the municipality, and incurred transportation expenses of P1,401.00, which he claimed from the municipal treasury. The Board of Liquidators rejected the municipality’s offer via Resolution No. 420 and proceeded with the public bidding. Venus sought the Provincial Auditor’s opinion on municipal participation in the bidding and was informed of the required procedures, including SB authorization, Sangguniang Panlalawigan approval, and pre-audit of cash advances, which would take at least two weeks and could not meet the September 19 bidding date. On September 19, 1988, Venus went to Manila at his personal expense, requested a postponement of the bidding (which was denied), and then submitted a personal bid. His bid was the highest, and he purchased the property in his name through a Deed of Absolute Sale dated October 3, 1988. He later introduced improvements at his own expense and, during his incumbency, allowed the municipality to use a portion of the lot for free as a garage for a fire truck and for a mushroom culture laboratory.
Private respondents Mars Regalado and Harry Abayon, SB members, filed a complaint with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, later forwarded to the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas, charging Venus with violation of Section 3(h) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The Deputy Ombudsman recommended dismissal of the complaint on October 20, 1993, finding no sufficient basis for the charge. However, Special Prosecution Officer III Orlando I. Ines, upon review, found reasonable ground to charge Venus instead with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. The Ombudsman approved this memorandum on April 26, 1996, and an Information was filed with the Sandiganbayan (Criminal Case No. 23332). Subsequently, Special Prosecution Officer III Victor A. Pascual recommended dismissal of the case for lack of probable cause in an Order dated July 15, 1997, but the Ombudsman disapproved this recommendation on August 1, 1997. Venus filed a petition for prohibition with the Supreme Court, seeking to annul the Ombudsman’s actions and to prohibit further prosecution, arguing absence of probable cause.

ISSUE

Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause to charge petitioner Eriberto L. Venus with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. The Court found that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. The elements of the offense under Section 3(e) are: (1) the accused is a public officer; (2) the act was done in the discharge of the public officer’s official, administrative, or judicial functions; (3) the act was done through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and (4) the act caused undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference.
The Court held that the third element was absent. Petitioner Venus did not act with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. His authority under SB Resolution No. 19 was limited to negotiating for the municipality on a government-to-government basis. Once the Board of Liquidators rejected the municipal offer and decided to proceed with a public bidding, his authority under that resolution was terminated. His subsequent actions—attending the bidding and purchasing the property in his personal capacity—were done in his private capacity, not in the discharge of his official functions. He used his personal funds, did not use municipal resources for the bid, and even allowed the municipality to use the property for free. There was no evidence of bad faith, as he had informed the SB of the denial of the municipal offer and the complexities of participating in the public bidding. The Court emphasized that probable cause requires facts and circumstances sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the accused is probably guilty. The Ombudsman’s finding lacked factual and legal basis. Consequently, the Sandiganbayan was ordered to dismiss Criminal Case No. 23332, and the temporary restraining order was made permanent.