GR 132120; (February, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 132120 ; February 10, 2003
PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG), petitioner, vs. Hon. ANIANO A. DESIERTO as Ombudsman, HERMINIO T. DISINI, PACIENCIA ESCOLIN-DISINI, ANGEL E. DISINI, LILIANA L. DISINI and LEA E. DISINI, respondents.
FACTS
The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) charged Herminio T. Disini, a close associate of the late President Ferdinand Marcos, with corruption of public officials and violation of the Anti-Graft Law. The charges stemmed from the award of contracts for the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP) project. PCGG alleged that Disini acted as a conduit, receiving millions of dollars in commissions from foreign corporations, specifically Westinghouse Electric Corporation and Burns & Roe, in exchange for using his influence with President Marcos to secure government contracts for them. This included facilitating the reversal of a prior award to another company and ensuring the award of the main and consultancy contracts to these firms.
The Office of the Ombudsman, however, dismissed the complaint for lack of prima facie evidence. The Ombudsman ruled that the evidence, primarily consisting of affidavits from foreign executives and documentary evidence of monetary transfers to Disini’s companies, was insufficient to establish probable cause. The Ombudsman found no direct evidence proving that Disini gave any part of the commissions to President Marcos or that Marcos was induced to act in favor of the corporations because of such payments.
ISSUE
Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal complaint against Herminio T. Disini for lack of prima facie evidence.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the Ombudsman’s resolutions. The Court held that the Ombudsman gravely abused his discretion by grossly misappreciating the evidence. The legal standard for preliminary investigation is the existence of probable cause, which merely requires evidence sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty. The Court found that the PCGG presented ample evidence to meet this threshold.
The logic of the ruling is that the Ombudsman focused myopically on the absence of direct proof of money being handed to Marcos, while ignoring the totality of circumstantial evidence. This evidence included: 1) Disini’s privileged access to Marcos, 2) the sequence of events where Disini’s intervention preceded favorable presidential actions for Westinghouse and Burns & Roe, 3) the substantial commissions paid to Disini’s entities coinciding with these government contracts, and 4) the affidavits detailing the agreement for such commissions. The Court emphasized that in crimes of bribery and corruption, direct evidence is rare, and conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence. The Ombudsman’s dismissal, based on a demand for direct evidence, was a capricious and whimsical exercise of power constituting grave abuse of discretion. The case was remanded to the Ombudsman for the proper filing of the necessary information against Disini.