G.R. No. 210488 , December 1, 2021
JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO, PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN – FIFTH DIVISION AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

A Complaint was filed by the Field Investigation Office of the Ombudsman (FIO-OMB) charging petitioner Jose Miguel T. Arroyo (Arroyo), his brother Ignacio “Iggy” Arroyo, Manila Aerospace Products Trading Corporation (MAPTRA) President Hilario “Larry” De Vera, and officials of the Philippine National Police (PNP) with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The case stemmed from the PNP’s 2009 purchase of helicopters, where two units delivered were alleged to be pre-owned by Arroyo, despite the requirement for brand new units.
The Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause relied heavily on the affidavit and Senate testimony of Archibald L. Po, owner of Lionair Inc. and Asian Spirit Inc. Po alleged that in 2003, Arroyo inquired about purchasing helicopters, advanced money for five Robinson R44 helicopters, and instructed Po to register them under Asian Spirit for tax purposes. Po claimed Arroyo later instructed him to sell two of these helicopters to MAPTRA, which then sold them to the PNP as brand new, with the payment remitted to Arroyo.
Arroyo denied the allegations, asserting he was a stranger to MAPTRA and its representative. He claimed it was Lourdes T. Arroyo, Incorporated (LTA), through his brother Iggy, that transacted with Po under an advance lease scheme, and that he had divested his shares in LTA before the helicopter purchase. He submitted documents, including U.S. Federal Aviation Administration export certificates and Air Transportation Office certificates of registration, to show Lionair as the owner of the helicopters.
The Ombudsman, in its Joint Resolution, found probable cause against Arroyo. It rejected his defense of divestment from LTA, noting the Deed of Assignment of his shares was not recorded in the corporation’s books and contained an “Irrevocable Proxy” clause appointing the assignee as his representative, indicating Arroyo remained the true stockholder. The Ombudsman also relied on Po’s statements, the subsidiary ledger of Lionair showing collections from Arroyo for helicopter expenses, the statement of Lionair flight dispatcher Domingo Lazo, and its finding that the Aircraft Fleet Service Agreement between LTA and Lionair was simulated. An Information for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 was filed before the Sandiganbayan, which denied Arroyo’s motions to dismiss and for reinvestigation. Arroyo filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed in a Decision dated January 27, 2020. Arroyo filed a Motion for Reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court correctly affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s finding of probable cause to hold petitioner Jose Miguel T. Arroyo for trial for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 .

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the Motion for Reconsideration and AFFIRMED its earlier Decision dismissing the Petition for Certiorari. The Court held that the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause against Arroyo.
The Court reiterated that in a petition for certiorari, the inquiry is limited to whether the Sandiganbayan acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The determination of probable cause is primarily an executive function of the Ombudsman, and its findings are generally not reviewed by courts absent a clear case of arbitrariness. Probable cause merely requires a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed and the accused is probably guilty thereof; it does not require evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the Ombudsman’s and the Sandiganbayan’s appreciation of evidence. It held that the Ombudsman correctly considered the totality of the evidence presented during the preliminary investigation, including: (1) the affidavit and testimony of Archibald Po; (2) the Deed of Assignment with the Irrevocable Proxy clause, which cast doubt on Arroyo’s claimed divestment from LTA; (3) the subsidiary ledger of Lionair showing Arroyo paid for helicopter maintenance and usage; (4) the affidavit of Domingo Lazo; and (5) the perceived simulated nature of the Aircraft Fleet Service Agreement. These pieces of evidence, taken together, were sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that Arroyo was the beneficial owner of the helicopters and was involved in the transaction leading to their sale to the PNP. The Court emphasized that the validity and merits of Arroyo’s defenses, including the ownership documents he presented, are evidentiary matters best ventilated in a full-blown trial. The denial of the Motion for Reconsideration is final.