Title
Marina P. Clarete vs. Office of the Ombudsman and Field Investigation Unit a Mindanao Area Office ~~Arthur Cua Yap vs. Office of the Ombudsman and Field Investigation Unit a Mindanao Area Office ~~Arthur Cua Yap vs. Sandiganbayan and People
Case
G.R. No. 232968
Decision Date
Apr 15, 2024
Former Rep. Marina Clarete and ex-DA Sec. Arthur Yap implicated in PDAF misuse; Yap's charges dismissed due to Ombudsman's inordinate delay, violating his right to speedy case disposition.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 232968)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Consolidated Petitions and Parties
    • Three separate Petitions for Certiorari were filed by the same set of parties with a common factual backdrop.
      • Marina P. Clarete, former Representative of the First District of Misamis Occidental (14th Congress), filed a Petition in G.R. No. 232968 challenging the Resolution and Order of the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) that found probable cause against her for multiple counts of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and malversation of public funds (including through falsification).
      • Arthur Cua Yap, former Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, filed a Petition in G.R. No. 232974 against the same OMB issuances, alleging similar irregularities.
      • Yap further filed a separate Petition in G.R. Nos. 238584-87 to challenge two Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan (SBN) ordering the continuation of proceedings against him in connection with charges including violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, malversation of public funds, and malversation through falsification.
    • The consolidated cases originate from anomalies in the utilization and disbursement of Marina Clarete’s Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) for 2007–2009.
  • Underlying Factual Background
    • The Special Audits Office (SAO) of the Commission on Audit (COA) issued Report No. 2012-03 revealing:
      • The PDAF was not properly released by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM).
      • Several implementing agencies failed to appropriately utilize the funds, releasing them for projects out of legislative districts and unrelated to their mandated functions.
      • Disbursement procedures did not follow requisite laws, resulting in funds being diverted to non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
    • Based on the SAO report and independent field validations, the OMB, through its Mindanao Field Investigation Unit, issued a Complaint (OMB-CA C-14-0248) against Clarete and other respondents.
    • The complaint alleged that Clarete, along with her co-accused, conspired to misuse PDAF allocations through a scheme involving:
      • Identification of preferred project partners (NGOs) by the legislator.
      • Execution of Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs) with the identified implementing agencies (IAs) and NGOs.
      • Manufacture and submission of fabricated documents (such as physical reports, liquidation reports, and lists of beneficiaries) to support the disbursement of the funds.
      • The funds—totaling PHP 65 million for Clarete—were meant for livelihood projects but resulted in “ghost projects” when no actual distribution reached the intended beneficiaries.
  • The Chain of Disbursement and Alleged Irregularities
    • The DBM released PDAF funds pursuant to Special Allotment Release Orders (SAROs) and Notices of Cash Allocation (NCAs).
      • Multiple SAROs (from ROCS-07-07894 to ROCS-09-03611 and others) were referenced in the complaint.
    • Clarete endorsed specific NGOs as “project partners” for executing the projects in her district, which included organizations such as:
      • Kabuhayan at Kalusugang Alay sa Masa Foundation, Inc. (KKAMFI)
      • Kasangga sa Magandang Bukas Foundation, Inc. (KMBFI)
      • Aaron Foundation Philippines, Inc. (AFPI)
    • The allegedly diverted funds were intended for various project components including livelihood technology kits (LTKs), farm input packages, and training course packages.
    • Field verifications demonstrated that:
      • NGOs submitted falsified reports and supporting documents.
      • Local government units (LGUs) denied receipt of tangible items or financial assistance.
      • Beneficiary lists were either fictitious or included individuals who either did not reside in the area or were deceased.
  • Procedural History and Specific Allegations against the Petitioner
    • For Clarete:
      • The OMB Resolution found probable cause charging her with 18 counts under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, seven counts of malversation of public funds, and 11 counts of malversation through falsification.
      • Her subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was denied.
    • For Yap:
      • He was indicted based on his execution of the MOA with NABCOR in connection with SARO No. ROCS-09-04240, linked to a PDAF allocation of PHP 8 million.
      • The allegations against him were for two counts of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, one count of malversation of public funds, and one count of malversation through falsification.
      • His motions, including a Motion for Partial Reconsideration with a Motion to Quash the Informations, were sequentially denied by the Sandiganbayan.
    • The overarching contentious issues include:
      • Allegations that the OMB gravely abused its discretion in determining probable cause and ignoring doctrinal mandates such as the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.
      • Contentions regarding the sufficiency and accuracy of the allegations in the Informations against Yap and the alleged inordinate delay in the termination of the preliminary investigation.

Issues:

  • Issues Raised in G.R. No. 232968 (Clarete’s Petition)
    • Whether the OMB gravely abused its discretion by:
      • Denying Clarete’s right to due process through neglecting proper procedures in the determination of probable cause.
      • Ignoring the doctrine of primary jurisdiction by pursuing an investigation despite pending COA actions (i.e., unissued COA Notices of Disallowance for related SAROs).
    • Whether the OMB’s finding of probable cause for multiple counts under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019) was legally sustainable given:
      • The defective complaint based on incomplete and selective fact-finding.
      • The absence of concurrent elements required to constitute the offenses charged.
  • Issues Raised in G.R. No. 232974 (Yap’s Petition Regarding OMB Issuances)
    • Whether the allegations levelled against Yap—pertaining to violation of Section 3(e) and malversation of public funds/falsification—were supported by evidence showing manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.
    • Whether Yap’s mere execution of the MOA could prima facie constitute an offense or implicate him in a criminal conspiracy.
  • Issues Raised in G.R. Nos. 238584-87 (Yap’s Petition Against SBN Resolutions)
    • Whether the Sandiganbayan’s denial of Yap’s Motion to Quash the Informations amounted to grave abuse of discretion, including:
      • Failure to consider that the allegations did not constitute an offense.
      • Inordinate delay in the conclusion of the preliminary investigation, which purportedly prejudiced Yap’s right to speedy disposition.
      • The prior dismissal by the OMB of similar charges and the lack of evidentiary basis supporting the criminal charges against him.
    • Whether the alleged actions (the signing of the MOA) were insufficient, by themselves, to establish the necessary elements (such as undue injury or favoritism) to sustain the charges.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.

About Privacy Terms