G.R. No. 213957 -58, August 7, 2019
ELENITA S. BINAY, Petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION), OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents

FACTS

An audit by the Commission on Audit’s Special Task Force revealed that in March 2001, the City of Makati, through its General Services Department Head Ernesto A. Aspillaga and then Mayor Elenita S. Binay, entered into a contract worth ₱38,799,700.00 with Apollo Medical Equipment and Supplies for hospital beds and cabinets for Ospital ng Makati. The contract was awarded without public bidding, based on Apollo’s claim of being the sole distributor of UGM-Medysis. The delivered beds were from a Taiwanese manufacturer, not UGM-Medysis. The actual cost of the items was only ₱2,447,376.14, far less than the ₱36,431,700.00 paid. Two complaints were filed with the Office of the Ombudsman. In a May 9, 2011 Resolution, the Ombudsman found probable cause to indict 15 officials for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and for malversation through falsification, but not against Mayor Binay, applying the Arias doctrine that she relied in good faith on her subordinates. Informations were filed with the Sandiganbayan. Several of the indicted officials filed Motions for Reconsideration. Subsequently, the Office of the Special Prosecutor issued a Consolidated Resolution dated August 29, 2013, recommending the inclusion of Mayor Binay as an accused for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and the filing of an amended information for malversation. This was approved by the Ombudsman. Binay’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied. Binay filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing that the May 9, 2011 Resolution became final and executory when the original complainants did not seek its reconsideration, that her right to due process was violated as she was not served copies of her co-accused’s motions, and that her right to speedy disposition of cases was violated.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing its May 9, 2011 Resolution and finding probable cause against petitioner Elenita S. Binay.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition. The Court held that the Office of the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The May 9, 2011 Resolution did not attain finality because motions for reconsideration were timely filed by Binay’s co-accused. The filing of these motions kept the resolution open for review. The Ombudsman has the authority to review and reverse the findings of a predecessor, especially when, as here, the review was initiated by motions for reconsideration from parties with standing. Binay’s right to due process was not violated; she was given the opportunity to be heard through her own Motion for Reconsideration after the reversal. The right to speedy disposition was not violated as the delays were not unreasonable and were partly attributable to the actions of the accused. The Court found that the Ombudsman’s reassessment, which considered Binay’s extensive participation in the procurement process, the unusual haste, and the magnitude of the amount involved, was a valid exercise of its discretion in determining probable cause. The Arias doctrine of reliance on subordinates was deemed a matter of defense best determined at trial.