G.R. No. 239168, September 15, 2020
Alfredo J. Non, Gloria Victoria C. Yap-Taruc, Josefina Patricia A. Magpale-Asirit and Geronimo D. Sta. Ana, Petitioners, vs. Office of the Ombudsman and Alyansa Para sa Bagong Pilipinas, Inc., Respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners, Chair and Commissioners of the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC), were charged before the Office of the Ombudsman for allegedly violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The complaint stemmed from the ERC’s issuance of Resolution No. 1, which extended the effectivity of a prior resolution requiring a competitive selection process (CSP) for power supply agreements. The complainants alleged this extension was orchestrated to allow Manila Electric Company (Meralco) to secure seven power supply agreements through direct negotiation just before the new deadline, thereby circumventing the CSP requirement and causing undue injury to the public. The Ombudsman found probable cause and filed an Information against the petitioners in court, where they were arraigned.
Subsequently, the petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari directly with the Supreme Court, assailing the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause as attended by grave abuse of discretion. They argued the finding lacked substantial evidence and noted that the constitutionality of the underlying ERC Resolution was still pending review in a separate case (G.R. No. 227670). After the petition was filed, the Supreme Court in that other case indeed declared the ERC Resolution void for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the Petition for Certiorari filed directly with the Supreme Court is the proper remedy to challenge the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause after the criminal information had been filed in court and the accused arraigned.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court, through Justice Leonen’s Separate Opinion, held that the petition was procedurally infirm. While certiorari is generally available to challenge a prosecutor’s finding of probable cause if tainted with grave abuse of discretion, it is only the appropriate remedy when it is the “plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.” In this case, at the time the petition was filed, the Regional Trial Court had already assumed jurisdiction over the criminal case upon the filing of the Information and the petitioners’ arraignment. Consequently, any question regarding the validity of the probable cause determination should have been addressed to the trial court through the proper motions available under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, such as a motion for judicial determination of probable cause, a motion to quash, or a motion for reinvestigation. To allow a direct petition to the Supreme Court under these circumstances would undermine the trial court’s jurisdiction and disrupt the orderly administration of justice. Therefore, the petition should be dismissed for being an improper remedy.