Facts:

The case involves petitioners Romeo A. Beltran and Danilo G. Sarmiento against the Sandiganbayan (Second Division), the Office of the Ombudsman, Assistant Special Prosecutor III Jennifer Agustin-Se, and the Commission on Audit (COA) represented by Danilo Sison, Romeo de Guzman, and Luis Dimoloy. The events leading to this case began with a complaint filed by the COA against several individuals, including then-mayor Alfredo M. Castillo, Beltran (the municipal engineer), and KAICO 25 Realty and Development Corporation (KAICO), which was represented by Sarmiento. The complaint alleged that Mayor Castillo entered into a contract worth P10,000,000.00 with KAICO for the construction of the Bato-Abuyo Farm-to-Market Road in Alfonso Castañeda, Nueva Vizcaya. An audit revealed that only 3.78% of the project was completed despite the full payment being made. A technical audit specialist from COA, Danilo N. Sison, prepared an inspection report detailing the project's deficiencies. O...

Facts:

Background of the Case

The case arose from a complaint filed by the Commission on Audit (COA) against Alfredo M. Castillo, Jr. (then mayor of Alfonso Castañeda, Nueva Vizcaya), Romeo A. Beltran (municipal engineer), and KAICO 25 Realty and Development Corporation (KAICO), represented by Danilo G. Sarmiento. The complaint alleged that Mayor Castillo entered into a P10,000,000.00 contract with KAICO for the construction of the Bato-Abuyo Farm-to-Market Road. However, COA auditors found that only 3.78% of the project was completed despite the full payment being disbursed.

COA Inspection Report

On January 2, 2003, COA technical audit specialist Danilo N. Sison prepared an Inspection Report detailing the project's deficiencies. A Joint Affidavit executed by COA auditors on November 3, 2003, confirmed that Beltran had certified the project as 100% complete and fully paid on July 31, 2002, despite only 3.78% being accomplished. The auditors recommended filing criminal and administrative charges against the involved parties.

Beltran’s Defense

Beltran argued that he was not a disbursing officer and had never handled the project's funds. He claimed that he signed the Project Acceptance based on what he observed and reported, invoking the presumption of regularity in official duties. He also relied on certifications from barangay captains Rosie Sanchez and Milton P. Suaking, dated November 6, 2003, and August 1, 2005, respectively, stating that the road was fully built and in use.

Office of the Deputy Ombudsman’s Decision

On January 21, 2010, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman found Beltran guilty of serious dishonesty for falsely certifying the project as 100% complete. The Ombudsman dismissed Beltran from government service and recommended criminal charges against him and Sarmiento for violations of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 and falsification of public documents under Article 171(4) of the Revised Penal Code. The administrative charges against Sarmiento and Mayor Castillo were dismissed.

Procedural History

Beltran filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the Office of the Special Prosecutor initially addressed in an Order dated February 1, 2011. However, this Order lacked a dispositive portion and was later replaced by a May 9, 2012 Order, approved by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales, denying Beltran’s Motion for Reconsideration. Meanwhile, criminal charges were filed before the Sandiganbayan, and Beltran and Sarmiento sought to defer their arraignment, arguing that their Motion for Reconsideration was still pending.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Office of the Special Prosecutor’s Authority: The Office of the Special Prosecutor is a component of the Office of the Ombudsman and acts under its supervision and control. It cannot independently deny a Motion for Reconsideration without the Ombudsman’s approval. The May 9, 2012 Order, approved by the Ombudsman, cured the procedural defect in the February 1, 2011 Order.
2. Determination of Probable Cause: The Office of the Ombudsman has broad discretion in determining probable cause. The Court will not interfere with this determination unless there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion. In this case, the Ombudsman properly weighed the evidence, including the COA Inspection Report, against the barangay captains’ certifications and the Fact-Finding Team’s findings, and found probable cause against Beltran and Sarmiento.
3. Non-Interference Principle: The Court emphasized the principle of non-interference in the Ombudsman’s findings of probable cause, as it is an executive function. The Ombudsman’s role as an independent constitutional body requires deference from the judiciary, absent grave abuse of discretion.
4. Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan: Once the criminal informations were filed before the Sandiganbayan, jurisdiction over the case transferred to the court. The Sandiganbayan’s determination of probable cause and subsequent arraignment of the petitioners rendered moot any challenge to the Ombudsman’s preliminary investigation.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed the Petition for Certiorari, upholding the Ombudsman’s findings and the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction over the criminal case. The Court reiterated the principle of non-interference in the Ombudsman’s determination of probable cause, absent grave abuse of discretion.