G.R. No. 147911 . October 14, 2005.
FEDERICO B. DIAMANTE III, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Federico B. Diamante III, the Municipal Mayor of Palo, Leyte, was charged before the Sandiganbayan with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) for allegedly withholding, with manifest partiality and evident bad faith, the honoraria of barangay officials for July and August 1999. The complaint was filed by Barangay Chairman Raul Ilagan. Diamante countered that the withholding was justified due to Ilagan’s failure to submit required Monthly Accomplishment Reports and that the honoraria had subsequently been released.
Following a reinvestigation, the investigating Ombudsman Prosecutor recommended the dismissal of the case, finding no probable cause. However, this recommendation was disapproved by higher prosecutorial officials within the Office of the Ombudsman, who opined that the issue of evident bad faith should be left for the court to decide. The Ombudsman ultimately approved the filing of the Information. The Sandiganbayan denied Diamante’s Motion for Reconsideration, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should reverse the Sandiganbayan’s resolution and dismiss the criminal case for lack of probable cause.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. Initially, the Court noted a procedural infirmity: the petition, though captioned as a special civil action, was substantively a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Resolutions of the Ombudsman in preliminary investigations are not appealable via Rule 45. The proper remedy for challenging the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause, if at all, is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, which was not properly invoked here.
More fundamentally, the Court affirmed the policy of non-interference with the Ombudsman’s constitutionally mandated investigatory and prosecutorial powers. The Court consistently refrains from disturbing the Ombudsman’s discretion in determining probable cause, absent a clear case of grave abuse of discretion. This policy is rooted in respect for the Ombudsman’s constitutional independence and practicality, to prevent the courts from being swamped with petitions reviewing prosecutorial discretion. The Court found no compelling reason to deviate from this settled doctrine. The subsequent release of the honoraria and Diamante’s justifications are evidentiary matters best ventilated in a full trial before the Sandiganbayan, not in a pre-trial petition questioning the finding of probable cause.