GR 135123; (January, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 135123 ; January 22, 2007
Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), Petitioner, vs. Hon. Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto, Herminio T. Disini, et al., Respondents.
FACTS
The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) filed a criminal complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against Herminio T. Disini and other officers of the Herdis Group of Companies, Inc. for alleged violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The complaint alleged that on March 11, 1982, respondent Disini, a known associate of the late President Ferdinand Marcos, gave shares of stock in two corporations worth millions of pesos to the President. The stock certificates were later found in Malacañang after President Marcos fled the country in 1986.
The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for lack of legal and factual basis. It primarily relied on a finding that the key evidence—a letter from Disini to Marcos—was hearsay and had no evidentiary value. The Ombudsman also noted the failure to serve orders on several respondents. The PCGG’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for certiorari, arguing the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion.
ISSUE
Did the Ombudsman act with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the PCGG’s criminal complaint?
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Ombudsman’s resolutions, and remanded the case for the filing of the proper information. The Court held that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion by requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt for the filing of an information, rather than merely determining the existence of probable cause. Probable cause merely implies a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed and the accused is probably guilty thereof; it does not demand final certainty.
The Ombudsman erroneously dismissed the complaint by undervaluing the evidence presented. The Court found that the PCGG submitted more than just the Disini letter; it also presented stock certificates found in Malacañang and an affidavit from a corporate officer, Angelo Manahan, detailing the divestment plan. These pieces of evidence, taken together, were sufficient to establish probable cause for a violation of the Anti-Graft law. The Ombudsman’s dismissal was thus not warranted by the facts available and constituted a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment. The duty at the preliminary investigation stage is to determine probable cause, not to rule on the ultimate guilt or innocence of the respondents.