G.R. Nos. 237888 & 237904, July 28, 2020
Wenceslao A. Sombero, Jr., Petitioner, vs. Office of the Ombudsman and National Bureau of Investigation, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Wenceslao “Wally” A. Sombero, Jr. filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 seeking to annul the Consolidated Resolution dated October 23, 2017 and Consolidated Order dated November 23, 2017 of the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB). The OMB found probable cause to indict him, along with Bureau of Immigration (BI) Deputy Commissioners Al C. Argosino and Michael B. Robles, for Plunder ( R.A. No. 7080 ), Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 , Direct Bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code, and violation of Presidential Decree No. 46. The cases originated from three complaints filed before the OMB concerning a transaction involving P50 million. The facts, as summarized from the complaints, allege that on November 24, 2016, BI agents apprehended 1,316 undocumented Chinese nationals at the Fontana Leisure Park and Casino, owned by Jack Lam. Sombero, introducing himself as President of the Asian Gaming Service Providers Association, Inc., arranged a meeting between Lam’s associates and DOJ Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre II and Argosino. On November 26, 2016, at a meeting in Shangri-La Hotel, an agreement for P100 million was allegedly discussed, with P50 million to be given immediately. In the early hours of November 27, 2016, at the City of Dreams in Pasay City, Sombero delivered paper bags containing a total of P50 million to Argosino and Robles, from which Sombero took P2 million. Subsequent meetings and demands for the remaining P50 million occurred. BI Acting Intelligence Chief Charles Calima later learned of the transaction and, after a confrontation, received P18 million from Argosino on December 9, 2016, purportedly as part of a counter-intelligence operation. The OMB’s Consolidated Resolution initially found probable cause against Sombero, Argosino, Robles, Calima, and Lam. Upon motions for reconsideration, the Consolidated Order modified the resolution, dropping the charges against Calima but maintaining the finding of probable cause against Sombero, Argosino, and Robles for the aforementioned crimes. An Information for Plunder was subsequently filed with the Sandiganbayan.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in rendering the assailed Consolidated Resolution and Consolidated Order finding probable cause against petitioner Sombero.

RULING

The Court ruled in the negative, finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman. The petition was dismissed. The Court emphasized that certiorari is an extraordinary writ, and the burden lies with the petitioner to prove that the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion in its finding of probable cause. The Court deferred to the Ombudsman’s constitutional mandate and investigatory prerogatives, noting that the determination of probable cause is an executive function. The Ombudsman is in a better position to assess the evidence at the preliminary investigation stage. The Court found that the Ombudsman’s conclusion—that Sombero conspired with Argosino and Robles in amassing ill-gotten wealth through a series of acts, including receiving the P50 million as a bribe in exchange for facilitating the release of the detained Chinese nationals—was based on substantial evidence and a rational assessment of the facts presented. Sombero’s arguments pertained to the appreciation of facts, which is generally beyond the scope of certiorari review absent a clear showing of capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment. The Court held that the Ombudsman did not violate Sombero’s right to due process, as he was given the opportunity to submit his counter-affidavit and file motions for reconsideration. Consequently, the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause to indict Sombero.