G.R. Nos. 203797-98. June 27, 2018.
Carmencita O. Reyes, Petitioner, v. Sandiganbayan (First Division), Office of the Special Prosecutor, Office of the Ombudsman, and the People of the Philippines, Respondents.

FACTS

This case originated from the investigation into the P728 million fertilizer fund scam. Petitioner Carmencita O. Reyes, then Governor of Marinduque, was charged before the Office of the Ombudsman with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code (Technical Malversation). The charges stemmed from the alleged procurement of farm equipment worth P5 million in 2004 without public bidding, through direct contracting with LCV Design and Fabrication Corporation, despite the company’s patent for the equipment not yet being approved. The Ombudsman found probable cause and filed the corresponding Informations with the Sandiganbayan.
Before her arraignment, Reyes filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion before the Sandiganbayan, seeking the dismissal of the cases or a remand for preliminary investigation. She argued that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion by relying on a Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Report, which she claimed was inadmissible, and by finding probable cause despite alleged insufficiency of evidence. The Sandiganbayan denied her motion and subsequent motion for reconsideration, prompting Reyes to file this Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause and in denying petitioner’s Urgent Omnibus Motion.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the Sandiganbayan. The Court emphasized that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy to assail the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause. The determination of probable cause for filing an information is an executive function within the Ombudsman’s discretion. Judicial review is limited to checking for grave abuse of discretion, which implies a capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
The Court ruled that the Ombudsman did not commit such abuse. The Ombudsman conducted an exhaustive investigation, and its reference to the Senate Committee Report merely supplemented its own findings; it did not rely on it as sole basis. The Ombudsman correctly determined that an offense had probably been committed and that the accused probably perpetrated it based on the evidence. Consequently, the Sandiganbayan acted correctly in denying Reyes’s motion, as it found no arbitrariness in the Ombudsman’s actions. The Sandiganbayan’s resolutions were therefore affirmed.