GR 163656; (April, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 163656; April 27, 2007
MARINA B. SCHROEDER, Petitioner, vs. ATTYS. MARIO A. SALDEVAR and ERWIN C. MACALINO, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Marina B. Schroeder, owner of a liquor store, filed a complaint leading to the arrest of respondents, BIR lawyers Mario A. Saldevar and Erwin C. Macalino, in an NBI entrapment operation in 1998. The Department of Justice (DOJ) found probable cause for direct bribery and filed an information in court. The case was remanded for preliminary investigation, after which the DOJ again found probable cause. Respondents filed a petition for review with the DOJ, which the DOJ endorsed to the Office of the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman treated the petition as a motion for reconsideration and denied it, affirming the finding of probable cause. Respondents then filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Court of Appeals. The appellate court partially granted the petition, annulling the Ombudsman’s order as to Saldevar, finding no probable cause against him, but upholding it as to Macalino. Schroeder’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling there was no probable cause against respondent Saldevar and in substituting its own findings for those of the prosecutorial arms of the government.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reinstating the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause against both respondents. The Court emphasized that the determination of probable cause is an executive function primarily vested in the public prosecutor and the Ombudsman. Judicial review is limited to checking for grave abuse of discretion in the conduct of preliminary investigations. There was no clear showing of such abuse by the Ombudsman here; thus, the appellate court improperly supplanted the Ombudsman’s discretion with its own.
Probable cause merely requires such facts and circumstances as would excite a belief that a crime was committed and the accused is probably guilty. The Ombudsman’s finding that sufficient evidence existed against Saldevar was reasonable. The Court clarified that for a finding of probable cause for direct bribery, it is not necessary that Saldevar actually demanded and received the bribe money himself. The ultimate determination of guilt is a matter for trial. Furthermore, the Court noted that respondents’ petition before the Court of Appeals improperly raised questions of fact, which are not reviewable in a certiorari proceeding alleging grave abuse of discretion. Finally, the Court upheld the DOJ’s endorsement of the petition for review to the Ombudsman, affirming the Ombudsman’s plenary and unqualified power to investigate and prosecute acts of public officers.