G.R. Nos. 212761-62/G.R. Nos. 213473-74/G.R. Nos. 213538-39. July 31, 2018. SENATOR JINGGOY EJERCITO ESTRADA, PETITIONER, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ET AL., RESPONDENTS. [CONSOLIDATED WITH] JOHN RAYMUND DE ASIS, PETITIONER, VS. CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES, ET AL., RESPONDENTS. [AND] JANET LIM NAPOLES, PETITIONER, VS. CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
FACTS

These consolidated petitions for certiorari assail the Office of the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause to indict petitioners Senator Jinggoy Estrada, John Raymund De Asis, and Janet Lim Napoles for Plunder and multiple violations of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) in relation to the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) scam. The assailed issuances are the Ombudsman’s Joint Resolution dated March 28, 2014, which found probable cause, and its Joint Order dated June 4, 2014, which denied the motions for reconsideration. Petitioners primarily argue that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion, alleging denial of due process and equal protection. They seek to enjoin the Sandiganbayan from proceeding with the cases and to nullify the Ombudsman’s resolutions.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in finding probable cause to charge the petitioners.

RULING

The petitions are dismissed. The Court, through the Concurring Opinion of Justice Tijam, held that the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. In a certiorari proceeding, the Court’s review is limited to errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. The policy of judicial non-interference in the Ombudsman’s exercise of its investigatory and prosecutory powers is well-established, anchored on its constitutional independence. The Court will not disturb the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause absent a clear showing of grave abuse, which implies a capricious, whimsical, or despotic exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
The legal logic is clear: a finding of probable cause requires only a reasonable ground to believe a crime was committed and the accused is probably guilty. It is based on probability, not certainty, and is merely a preliminary determination to bind the accused over for trial. The Ombudsman’s finding in this case was supported by substantial evidence, including the prima facie indication of Senator Estrada’s participation through his identification of project partners in the PDAF scheme—an act previously characterized by the Court in the Araullo case as integral to the budget execution process. Petitioners’ claims of evidentiary flaws or denial of due process pertain to the merits of the case, which are proper for determination in a full-blown trial before the Sandiganbayan, not in a certiorari petition challenging the preliminary investigation. Since petitioners failed to demonstrate that the Ombudsman acted arbitrarily or with manifest partiality, its findings command respect and finality.