GR 166038; (December, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 166038; December 4, 2007
WILFREDO M. TRINIDAD, petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ASIA’S EMERGING DRAGON CORPORATION, AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Wilfredo M. Trinidad, as a member of the Pre-qualifications, Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC) for the NAIA IPT III Project, was charged before the Sandiganbayan for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The Office of the Ombudsman found probable cause to file two Informations. In Criminal Case No. 28089, he was accused of knowingly pre-qualifying the Paircargo Consortium despite its failure to meet the required financial capability standards. The Ombudsman held that the PBAC, including Trinidad, deliberately disregarded banking laws which limit a bank’s investment in a single enterprise, thereby artificially inflating the consortium’s net worth to meet the equity requirement.
During the pendency of Trinidad’s petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Supreme Court challenging the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause, the Sandiganbayan dismissed the other case (Criminal Case No. 28093). Consequently, the petition before the Supreme Court was mooted as to that case. The sole remaining issue pertained to the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause in Criminal Case No. 28089, which Trinidad argued was issued with grave abuse of discretion.
ISSUE
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause to charge petitioner Trinidad for violation of Section 3(j) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman. The Court reiterated the well-established doctrine that it will not interfere with the Ombudsman’s exercise of its investigatory and prosecutory powers, absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
The Ombudsman’s finding was based on a prima facie evaluation that the PBAC, including Trinidad, pre-qualified Paircargo despite its failure to comply with the financial capability requirement under the BOT Law’s Implementing Rules and PBAC Bulletin No. 3. The Ombudsman determined that the consortium’s actual equity, after applying the legal limits on bank investments under the General Banking Act, was only 6.08% of the project cost, far short of the required 30%. This constituted a reasonable ground to believe that a crime had been committed and that the accused was probably guilty thereof. The determination of probable cause does not require certainty of conviction but merely enough evidence to engender a well-founded belief. The Court found the Ombudsman’s resolution to be anchored on evidence and law, not on caprice. Therefore, the petition was bereft of merit.