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

The Office of the Ombudsman investigated anomalies in the Philippine National Police’s 2009 purchase of light operational police helicopters. It found that two Robinson R44 Raven helicopters, pre-owned by petitioner Jose Miguel T. Arroyo, were sold to the PNP through Manila Aerospace Products Trading Corporation despite a requirement that the helicopters be brand new. Arroyo, along with others, was indicted for violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 for causing undue injury to the government. Arroyo voluntarily surrendered, posted bail, and pleaded not guilty during arraignment as a condition to obtain travel authority. He filed a Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause, arguing no evidence showed he owned the helicopters, which were instead owned by Archibald Po or his companies, Lion Air and Asian Spirit. He also claimed no evidence showed his participation or conspiracy in the purchase. The Sandiganbayan denied his motion, finding probable cause based on the evidence, and affirmed the Ombudsman’s findings. Arroyo’s motion for reconsideration was denied. He filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed, affirming the Sandiganbayan’s resolutions. Arroyo filed the present Motion for Reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Office of the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause to indict Arroyo for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019.

RULING

The dissenting opinion argues that the Supreme Court must not interfere with the Office of the Ombudsman’s exercise of prerogatives absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion. Allegations of misappreciation of evidence are insufficient to establish such abuse. The Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The determination of probable cause is an executive function, and courts should respect the Ombudsman’s findings unless they are arbitrary or capricious. The evidence on record, including testimonies and documents, provided a basis for the finding of probable cause against Arroyo. His arguments regarding ownership and lack of participation pertain to the merits of the case, which are best resolved during trial, not in a pre-trial determination of probable cause. His arraignment, even as a condition for travel, constitutes a waiver of his right to question the finding of probable cause. Therefore, the motion for reconsideration should be denied.