PEOPLE v. MAXIMO A. BORJE, GR No.

170046, 2014-12-10
Facts:
On January 9, 2002, the Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), Simeon
Datumanong, issued Department Order No. 15, Series of 2002, creating a committee for the purpose of
investigating alleged anomalies and illegal disbursements in connection with the... repair of DPWH-
owned motor vehicles and equipment.[3] As a result of the investigation, it was discovered that during
the period of March 2001 to December 2001, the emergency repairs conducted on hundreds of DPWH
vehicles, approved and paid for by the... government, did not actually take place, resulting in the loss of
about One Hundred Thirty-Nine Million Pesos
Atty. Irene D. Ofilada, of the Internal Audit Service of the DPWH and member of the committee, filed
with the Office of the Ombudsman a criminal complaint for violation of
General Appropriations Act... against the several officials/employees of the DPWH, including
respondents herein.[5]
Thereafter, respondents filed their responsive pleadings essentially assailing the Ombudsman's finding
of probable cause.
Sandiganbayan issued an Order[7] giving respondents a period within which to submit their memoranda
of... authority.
petitioner questioned the authority of the Sandiganbayan to act on respondents' motions, arguing that
the same had not yet acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the respondents and, hence, it... had no
authority to hear and decide their motions. Petitioner also alleged that it successfully established
probable cause justifying the issuance by the respondent court of a warrant of arrest.
Sandiganbayan issued the assailed Resolution[9] upholding its authority to act on respondents' motions
for their filing of the same may be considered as voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court
and dismissing the... case for lack of probable cause for the crime of plunder without prejudice to the
filing of appropriate charges against the accused-respondents. It ruled that as the records reveal, not all
elements of the crime are present for the accused Borje had not amassed ill-gotten wealth... of at least
P50 million. It further denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration in its Resolution... for lack of merit.
Hence, the instant petition
Issues:
THE EXECUTIVE FUNCTION OF DETERMINING THE EXISTENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE FILING OF
AN INFORMATION IS VESTED SOLELY IN THE PROSECUTION.
THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN IS NOT BOUND BY THE FINDINGS OF ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES IN ITS
DETERMINATION OF THE EXISTENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE FILING OF A CRIMINAL CASE.
Ruling:
Petitioner maintains that the preliminary investigation conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman is an
executive, not a judicial function.  As such, it asserts that respondent Sandiganbayan should have given
deference to the finding and determination of probable cause in... their preliminary investigation.
Moreover, petitioner faulted the respondent court for taking into consideration the findings of Atty.
Irene Ofilada of the Investigating  Committee that it was not respondent Borje who encashed the checks
but the respondent-suppliers,... by virtue of a blanket authority given by the former to the latter. It
posits that said findings cannot bind the Office of the Ombudsman in its determination of the existence
of probable cause.
Respondents counter that the respondent court correctly dismissed the case for the evidence clearly
shows the absence of certain elements of the crime. They maintain that while investigating officers have
a wide latitude of discretion in the determination of probable cause,... which deserves respect from the
courts, the acts of the Ombudsman in disregarding essential pieces of evidence are tantamount to an
abuse of discretion authorizing the dismissal by the court of the case.
We rule in favor of petitioner.
there are two kinds of determination of probable cause: executive and judicial.
executive determination of probable cause ascertains whether a criminal case must be filed in court.
It is a function that... properly pertains to the public prosecutor who is given a broad discretion to
determine whether probable cause exists and to charge those whom he believes to have committed the
crime as defined by law and should be held for trial.
judicial determination of probable cause ascertains whether a warrant of arrest should be issued against
the accused. It is one made by a judge who must satisfy himself that based on the evidence presented,
there is necessity in placing the accused under custody so that the ends... of justice will not be
frustrated.
the determination of probable cause during the preliminary investigation, or reinvestigation for that
matter, is a function that belongs to the Office of the Ombudsman, which is empowered to determine,
in... the exercise of its discretion, whether probable cause exists, and to charge the person believed to
have committed the crime as defined by law.
It is well settled that courts do not interfere with the discretion of the Ombudsman to determine the
presence or absence of probable cause believing that a crime has been committed and that the accused
is probably guilty thereof necessitating the filing of the corresponding... information with the
appropriate courts.
This rule is based not only on respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the
Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman but upon practicality as well. If it were otherwise, the
functions of... the Court will be seriously hampered by innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of
investigatory proceedings conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman with regard to complaints filed
before it, in much the same way that the courts would be extremely swamped with cases
Thus, unless it is shown that the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause was done in a... capricious and
whimsical exercise of judgment evidencing a clear case of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction, this Court will not interfere with the same.
Also, it would be unfair to expect the prosecution to present all the evidence needed to secure the
conviction of the accused upon the filing of the information against the latter. The reason is found in the
nature and objective of a preliminary investigation. Here,... the public prosecutors do not decide
whether there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the person charged; they merely
determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been
committed and that respondent is probably... guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.
It has consistently been... held that there is grave abuse of discretion where power is exercised in an
arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility. The abuse must be so patent and gross as
to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty or to act at... all in
contemplation of law.
The Ombudsman in this case, however, was merely performing his duty as mandated by the
Constitution[23] and by law.
Principles:

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. HON. DELA TORRE-YADAO, ET AL.

G.R. No. 162144-54 ; 13 November 2012

PONENTE: Del Abad

FACTS:

In the early morning of May 18, 1995, the combined forces of the Philippine National Police’s Anti-Bank
Robbery and Intelligence Task Group (PNP ABRITG) composed of Task Force Habagat, then headed by
Police Chief Superintendent Panfilo M. Lacson killed 11 suspected members of the Kuratong Baleleng
Gang along Commonwealth Avenue in Quezon City. Subsequently, SPO2 Eduardo Delos Reyes of
the Criminal Investigation Command told the press that it was a summary execution, not a shoot-out
between the police and those who were slain. After investigation, the DeputyOmbudsman for Military
Affairs absolved all the police officers involved. On review, however, the Office of the Ombudsman
reversed the finding and filed charges of murder against the police officers involved before the
Sandiganbayan. On March 29, 1999 the RTC of Quezon City ordered the provisional dismissal of the
cases for lack

of probable cause to hold the accused for trial following the recantation of the principal prosecution
witnesses and the desistance of the private complainants.

The case was reopened in March 27, 2001 but the CA rendered a Decision, granting Lacson’s petition on
the ground of double jeopardy but on appeal to the SC, the latter directed the RTC to try the case. It was
re-raffled to branch 81 presided by Judge Yadao.  Yadao in 2003 junked the murder case against Lacson
and other police officials for lack of probable cause.On March 3, 2004 the prosecution filed the present
special civil action of certiorari.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Judge Yadao gravely abused her discretion when she dismissed the criminal actions on
the ground of lack of probable cause

 
HELD:

            The prosecution claims that Judge Yadao gravely abused her discretion when she set the motions
for determination of probable cause for hearing, deferred the issuance of warrants of arrest, and
allowed the defense to mark its evidence and argue its case. The general rule of course is that the judge
is not required, when determining probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrests, to conduct a
de novo hearing. The judge only needs to personally review the initial determination of the prosecutor
finding a probable cause to see if it is supported by substantial evidence. But here, the prosecution
conceded that their own witnesses tried to explain in their new affidavits the inconsistent statements
that they earlier submitted to the Office of the Ombudsman. Consequently, it was not unreasonable for
Judge Yadao, for the purpose of determining probable cause based on those affidavits, to hold a hearing
and examine the inconsistent statements and related documents that the witnesses themselves brought
up and were part of the records. The SC held that the evidence on record clearly fails to establish
probable cause against the respondents.

            The prosecution The prosecution points out that, rather than dismiss the criminal action outright,
Judge Yadao should have ordered the panel of prosecutors to present additional evidence pursuant to
Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court gives the
trial court three options upon the filing of the criminal information: (1) dismiss the case if the evidence
on record clearly failed to establish probable cause; (2) issue a warrant of arrest if it finds probable
cause; and (3) order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within five days from notice in case
of doubt as to the existence of probable cause. But the option to order the prosecutor to present
additional evidence is not mandatory. The court’s first option under the above is for it to “immediately
dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause.” That is the situation
here: the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause against the respondents.

            In the absence of probable cause to indict respondents for the crime of multiple murder, they
should be insulated from the tribulations, expenses and anxiety of a public trial.

Antiporda vs Garchitorena (1999) G.R. 133289

Facts:
Accused Mayor Licerio Antiporda and others were charged for the crime of kidnapping, the case was
filed in the first division of Sandiganbayan. Subsequently, the Court ordered the prosecution to submit
amended information, which was complied evenly and the new information contained the place where
the victim was brought.
The accused filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion praying that a reinvestigation be conducted and the
issuance of warrants of arrest be deferred but it was denied by the Ombudsman.   The accused
thereafter filed a Motion for New Preliminary investigation and to hold in abeyance and/or recall
warrant of arrest issued but the same was also denied. Subsequently, the accused filed a Motion to
Quash Amended Information for lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged, which was ignored for
their continuous refusal to submit their selves to the Court and after their voluntary appearance which
invested the Sandiganbayan jurisdiction over their persons, their motion for reconsideration was again
denied.

Issue (1): WON the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the offense charged.
Held: No. The original Information filed with the Sandiganbayan did not mention that the offense
committed by the accused is office-related. It was only after the same was filed that the prosecution
belatedly remembered that a jurisdictional fact was omitted therein.
However, we hold that the petitioners are estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
for in the supplemental arguments to motion for reconsideration and/or reinvestigation filed with the
same court, it was they who “challenged the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court over the case and
clearly stated in their Motion for Reconsideration that the said crime is work connected.
It is a well-settled rule that a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief
against his opponent, and after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same
jurisdiction.
We therefore hold that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case because of estoppel and it was
thus vested with the authority to order the amendment of the Information.

Issue (2): WON reinvestigation must be made anew.

Held: No. A reinvestigation is proper only if the accused’s substantial rights would be impaired. In the
case at bar, we do not find that their rights would be unduly prejudiced if the Amended Information is
filed without a reinvestigation taking place. The amendments made to the Information merely describe
the public positions held by the accused/petitioners and stated where the victim was brought when he
was kidnapped.
It must here be stressed that a preliminary investigation is essentially inquisitorial, and it is often the
only means of discovering the persons who may be reasonably charged with a crime, to enable the
prosecutor to prepare his complaint or information. It is not a trial of the case on the merits and has no
purpose except that of determining whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable
cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof, and it does not place the persons accused in
jeopardy. It is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the parties’ evidence; it is for the
presentation of such evidence only as may engender a well-grounded belief that an offense has been
committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof.
The purpose of a preliminary investigation has been achieved already and we see no cogent nor
compelling reason why a reinvestigation should still be conducted.