G.R. No. 153152. October 19, 2005.
RUPERTO V. PERALTA and EMERITA P. PERALTA, Petitioners, vs. Hon. ANIANO DESIERTO, in His Official Capacity as Ombudsman of the Philippines; TOBIAS REYNALD M. TIANGCO; MANUEL T. ENRIQUEZ; GEORGE T. GOCO; JOSE C. RUIZ JR.; EVANGELINE P. CRUZ; ERNESTO J. GARCIA; and VALERIO A. BINAYUG, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Ruperto and Emerita Peralta, owners of Shalom Motor Works, filed a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman against several municipal officials of Navotas for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. They alleged that from August 2000, respondent Ernesto Garcia, head of the municipal motor pool, engaged their services to repair government vehicles. They claimed they were forced by Garcia to encash checks issued by the municipality and surrender a portion of the proceeds to him, receiving only partial “vale” payments. They further alleged they were made to sign blank purchase orders, one of which was later filled with an excessive amount and bore the signatures of other respondents. They also discovered a purchase order for a fire truck overhaul they did not perform, supported by a falsified cash invoice from their shop.
The respondents, including Mayor Tobias Tiangco and other officials, filed their counter-affidavits. Mayor Tiangco admitted the municipality contracted with Shalom Motor Works but contended the total obligation was only ₱89,340.40, not ₱181,265.00 as claimed, and that this had been fully paid as evidenced by disbursement vouchers and checks. He denied any conspiracy and argued the transactions followed regular government procedures.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal complaint for lack of probable cause.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman. The Court reiterated its consistent policy of non-interference in the Ombudsman’s determination of probable cause, which is an executive function. Judicial review is warranted only upon a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, which implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
The Ombudsman found insufficient evidence to establish probable cause. It noted that the petitioners’ allegations of coercion and fraud were not substantiated by convincing proof and were contradicted by the official documents presented by the respondents, such as disbursement vouchers and checks showing full payment. The Ombudsman concluded that the evidence did not adequately support the elements of the crime, particularly the presence of evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence required under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. The mere existence of conflicting claims between the parties does not justify a finding of grave abuse of discretion. Since the Ombudsman’s resolution was based on the evidence and not arrived at arbitrarily, the Court upheld its finding of no probable cause.