G.R. No. 132120 - Presidential Commission on Good Government vs. Desierto

The case involves a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 filed by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) against then Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto.
The complaint centers on serious allegations of multimillion‐dollar bribes and unlawful commission payments related to the Philippine Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP) project, a non-performing billion-dollar project.
The PNPP project was initiated in the early 1970s under President Ferdinand Marcos, and its implementation involved the National Power Corporation (NPC) and several foreign engineering companies, notably Westinghouse Electric Corporation and Burns & Roe.

PCGG charged Herminio T. Disini with bribing President Marcos to influence the award of the PNPP project contracts.
It was alleged that Disini acted as a go-between for Westinghouse and Burns & Roe, facilitating negotiations that resulted in the cancellation of awarding the consulting contract to Ebasco and, instead, favoring Burns & Roe and Westinghouse.
Disini was accused of receiving substantial commission payments in return for his role in influencing the government’s decision, thereby violating provisions on direct bribery and corruption of public officials.

In August 1973, President Marcos instructed the NPC to pursue the nuclear power plant project. Due to NPC’s limited expertise, several foreign firms, including Westinghouse and Burns & Roe, were considered.
By early 1974, a Westinghouse representative approached Disini to act as their special sales representative (SSR) in negotiations with Marcos.
Disini communicated with representatives from both Westinghouse and Burns & Roe regarding the awarding of contracts; testimony and documentary evidence (such as Aide Memoire, telexes, and affidavits) established that Disini discussed terms of a commission-based arrangement.
Negotiations evolved so that Burns & Roe, initially engaged as consultants, were later positioned for more lucrative architectural/engineering contracts, while Westinghouse was eyed for the prime construction contract.
Evidence indicated that Disini’s intervention led NPC to rescind the contract award to Ebasco and to award the consulting contract to Burns & Roe, while Westinghouse was later advanced as the preferred contractor for a turnkey project.

The PCGG introduced a variety of documentary evidence, including several telexes, Aide Memoire documents, and correspondences concerning the PNPP project deals.
Affidavits from key witnesses such as Samuel P. Hull Jr. and Angelo V. Manahan detailed Disini’s alleged role in facilitating negotiations, the arrangement for commission payments, and his purported influence on President Marcos.
The evidence included detailed descriptions of meetings, such as a notable encounter at the Intercontinental Hotel where Disini allegedly assured Hull of his ability to influence the contract awards.
Documents also revealed details of the mechanism for commission payments—including advance payments and subsequent remittances, some conveyed to bank accounts in Switzerland—to corroborate the bribery allegations.

The Ombudsman’s Resolution and subsequent Order exonerated Disini by concluding that there was insufficient prima facie evidence establishing his personal involvement in the meetings or the negotiations.
The Resolution noted deficiencies in the documentation, including unauthenticated Aide Memoire and telex records, and a lack of direct testimonial evidence linking Disini to the bribery arrangements.
Despite a host of corroborative affidavits and documentary exhibits presented by PCGG, the Ombudsman dismissed the charges against Disini.

Whether the Ombudsman exercised his investigatory and prosecutorial prerogative arbitrarily or capriciously by dismissing the criminal complaints against Herminio T. Disini.

Specifically, whether his decision amounted to a grave abuse of discretion in light of the substantial evidence presented by PCGG.
Whether the dismissal ignored the cumulative probative value of the affidavits, telexes, Aide Memoire documents, and other supporting papers that established a well-founded belief of Disini’s guilt.

Whether the evidence presented, despite certain evidentiary deficiencies acknowledged by the Ombudsman, was sufficient to sustain a finding of probable cause for the crimes charged.

The issue also involved assessing the appropriate standard in a preliminary investigation as opposed to the standard necessary for conviction at trial.

The proper role of judicial review in examining whether the investigatory actions of the Ombudsman, as a quasi-judicial officer, complied with constitutional and legal requirements regarding probable cause.