G.R. No. 232968 , 232974, 238584-87, April 15, 2024
MARINA P. CLARETE, FORMER REPRESENTATIVE, FIRST DISTRICT OF MISAMIS OCCIDENTAL, 14TH CONGRESS, PETITIONER, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND FIELD INVESTIGATION UNIT – MINDANAO AREA OFFICE, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 232974] ARTHUR CUA YAP, PETITIONER, VS. THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND FIELD INVESTIGATION UNIT – MINDANAO AREA OFFICE, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. Nos. 238584-87] ARTHUR CUA YAP, PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

These consolidated petitions originate from the alleged anomalies in the utilization of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) allocations of former Representative Marina P. Clarete for 2007 to 2009. Based on a Commission on Audit Special Audits Office Report and its own field validations, the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) found that Clarete’s PDAF totaling PHP 65 million was released to implementing agencies (IAs) she identified, which then transferred the funds to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) she endorsed—Kabuhayan at Kalusugang Alay sa Masa Foundation, Inc., Kasangga sa Magandang Bukas Foundation, Inc., and Aaron Foundation Philippines, Inc.—for Integrated Livelihood Development Projects. On-site verifications revealed the projects were “ghost projects”; the NGOs submitted fabricated documents to the IAs, and the purported beneficiaries either denied receiving items, were not residents, were fictitious, or were deceased. Local government units also refuted receiving any project items. The OMB implicated officers of the concerned IAs, including former Department of Agriculture Secretary Arthur Cua Yap, for failing to safeguard government property. Yap was indicted for executing a Memorandum of Agreement for the transfer of PHP 8 million of Clarete’s PDAF to the National Agribusiness Corporation. The OMB found probable cause to charge Clarete and others with multiple counts of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 , malversation of public funds, and malversation through falsification. The Sandiganbayan subsequently issued resolutions in the criminal cases against Yap. Clarete and Yap filed separate petitions for certiorari assailing the OMB’s findings and the Sandiganbayan’s resolutions.

ISSUE

The primary issues involve whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause against petitioners Clarete and Yap, and whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying Yap’s motions in the criminal cases filed against him.

RULING

The petitions were denied. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Office of the Ombudsman or the Sandiganbayan. The Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause was based on substantial evidence, including audit reports and field validation results showing a scheme where PDAF funds were diverted to NGOs for non-existent projects. For a charge of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 , the elements of the offense were sufficiently alleged: the accused are public officers; the charged acts were done in the discharge of their official functions; they were done through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and such acts caused undue injury to the government. The allegations of conspiracy among the petitioners, the IAs, and the NGOs were also sufficiently pleaded. The Court upheld the Ombudsman’s discretion in determining probable cause, noting that its function is not to review such findings de novo but only to check for arbitrariness. Similarly, the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying Yap’s motions, as the factual allegations in the Informations sufficiently charged the offenses. The Court emphasized that in a petition for certiorari, the inquiry is limited to the determination of whether the respondent tribunal acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, which was not present in these cases.