G.R. No. 169727 -28, August 18, 2006
BRIG. GEN. (Ret.) JOSE S. RAMISCAL, JR., Petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (4th Division) and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jose Ramiscal, Jr., former President of the AFP-Retirement and Separation Benefits System (AFP-RSBS), was implicated in anomalies involving the purchase of real estate properties. A Senate Blue Ribbon Committee investigation uncovered a scheme where two sets of deeds of sale were used for single transactions: a unilateral deed with a lower price registered to evade taxes, and a bilateral deed with a higher price kept in AFP-RSBS files to justify large disbursements. Following the Senate report, Ombudsman investigators filed a complaint. An initial Ombudsman panel recommended the filing of charges against other individuals but suggested further investigation on Ramiscal, citing the Arias v. Sandiganbayan doctrine on reliance on subordinates. This recommendation was not acted upon. A second panel later found probable cause against Ramiscal for multiple counts of Falsification of Public Documents and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The Sandiganbayan issued warrants for his arrest, which he challenged via a Petition for Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause and issuing warrants of arrest against the petitioner.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court clarified that in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, the inquiry is limited to whether the Sandiganbayan acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The determination of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest is a judicial function, and the Sandiganbayan’s finding is generally not subject to review absent a clear showing of arbitrariness. The Court found no such arbitrariness. The existence of two sets of deeds with disparate prices, which Ramiscal signed, provided sufficient basis for a well-grounded belief that a crime had been committed and that he was probably guilty. The Court also held that the Arias doctrine, which allows heads of offices to rely on subordinates, is not an absolute defense and may be invoked during trial, not as a ground to negate probable cause at the preliminary stage. The Sandiganbayan correctly exercised its discretion in evaluating the evidence and finding probable cause to proceed with the trial.