G.R. No. 226420 , March 04, 2020
ABDON A. IMINGAN, PETITIONER, VS. THE OFFICE OF THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN, THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, AND THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION-CORDILLERA ADMINISTRATIVE REGION, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Complainant Harry C. Dominguez filed an affidavit charging several individuals, including petitioner Abdon A. Imingan (BAC Secretariat), with multiple counts of Estafa through Falsification of Public Documents, violations of Republic Act (RA) 6713, and RA 3019. The complaint alleged that sometime in February to March 2006, the respondents conspired to make it appear that the Provincial Government of Mt. Province officially procured one unit Mitsubishi L300 Versa Van from Ronald Kimakim for PhP999,000.00. However, the complaint alleged that the same vehicle was actually privately purchased in cash by Helen Macli-ing from Motorplaza, Inc. for only PhP756,000.00, and thus no official transaction between Governor Maximo B. Dalog and Kimakim transpired. The complaint was referred to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), which issued a Case Report concluding that the deed of sale between Kimakim and Gov. Dalog was false and that all supporting documents for the procurement were fabricated to justify the disbursement of PhP999,000.00, defrauding the provincial government. The NBI Report listed various documents, including a Post-Qualification Evaluation Report, a Post-Qualification Evaluation Summary Report, and a Bid Evaluation Report, which were signed by petitioner Imingan as BAC Secretariat. The Ombudsman found probable cause to charge petitioner and others with violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing he merely performed ministerial duties in preparing the reports based on documents provided to him and had no participation in the alleged conspiracy. The Ombudsman denied the motion. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

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 petitioner Abdon A. Imingan with violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019.

RULING

No, the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court held that the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause was supported by evidence and done within the bounds of its constitutionally mandated powers. Probable cause is defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind that the person charged has committed the crime for which he is prosecuted. The Court emphasized that in a petition for certiorari, the inquiry is limited to determining whether the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion, which means a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The Ombudsman enjoys a wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutory powers, and its findings on probable cause are generally not reviewable by the Court absent a clear case of abuse. The Court found that the Ombudsman’s determination was based on the NBI Report and the documents submitted, including reports signed by petitioner which formed part of the procurement process for the allegedly non-existent transaction. Petitioner’s defense that he merely performed ministerial duties and relied on the completeness of documents submitted to him is a matter of defense best ventilated in a full-blown trial. The presence or absence of the elements of the offense is evidentiary in nature and is not a proper subject of the Court’s review at this stage. The Ombudsman did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in finding probable cause. Therefore, the petition was denied for lack of merit.