G.R. No. 135912 , September 17, 2001
Odin Security Agency, Inc., represented by its President/General Manager, Col. Arturo C. Ferrer (Ret.), Petitioner, vs. Sandiganbayan (Second Division), Special Prosecution Officer Rodrigo V. Coquia, Aniceto M. Sobrepeña, Manuel Gaite, Dalisay Nazareno, Guillerma Reyes and Demetrio Ignacio, Respondents.

FACTS

The Presidential Management Staff (PMS) conducted a public bidding for security services. Petitioner Odin Security Agency and Masada Security Agency submitted the lowest bid proposals. The PMS Bids and Awards Committee (BAC), composed of private respondents, evaluated the bids using set criteria and ranked Nationwide Security and Allied Services, Inc. (Nationwide) first, with Odin and Masada tying for second. The BAC recommended, and PMS Head Aniceto Sobrepeña approved, the award to Nationwide. Odin protested, alleging Nationwide misrepresented its paid-up capital in its financial statement. The BAC found no substantial misrepresentation, and the contract was awarded. Odin later filed another protest, alleging further falsifications. After investigation, PMS terminated Nationwide’s contract for substantial misrepresentation but subsequently awarded the service to Ardee Security Agency, not to Odin as the next ranking bidder.
Odin filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against the PMS officials for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). After preliminary investigation, an Information was filed with the Sandiganbayan. Upon reinvestigation, however, the Ombudsman recommended dismissal for lack of probable cause. The Sandiganbayan, after requiring comment, adopted this recommendation and dismissed the case. Odin’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal case for lack of probable cause to indict the PMS officials for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019.

RULING

No. The Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Probable cause requires such facts and circumstances as would excite a reasonable belief that the person charged is guilty of the crime. The determination of its existence lies within the sound discretion of the Office of the Ombudsman. The Court has consistently held that it will not interfere with the Ombudsman’s exercise of this investigatory and prosecutory power absent a clear case of grave abuse of discretion.
In this case, the Ombudsman found no probable cause. The Sandiganbayan did not merely rely on this recommendation but independently reviewed the evidence, concluding there was no proof of felonious linkage or conspiracy between the PMS officials and Nationwide. The court noted that the grant of the bid to Nationwide should be separated from any misrepresentations Nationwide may have made in its documents, as there was no evidence showing the accused officials conspired to give Nationwide undue preference through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. The arguments raised by Odin regarding being the lowest bidder and alleged conspiracy are matters of defense proper for trial, not for sustaining a finding of probable cause. Since the findings of both the Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan are essentially factual and show no taint of arbitrariness, the petition for certiorari, which raises questions of fact inappropriate for such a writ, must fail. The petition was dismissed.