G.R. No. 208243 - Reyes vs. Office of the Ombudsman

In November 2005, the Sangguniang Bayan of Bansalan, Davao del Sur enacted Municipal Ordinance No. 357 prohibiting the storing, displaying, selling, and “pagpabuto” (blowing up) of pyrotechnic products such as firecrackers within specified buildings of the Bansalan Public Market.
In December 2009, then-Mayor Reyes approved a permit allowing vendors to sell firecrackers at the Bansalan Public Market from December 21, 2009 to January 1, 2010 despite the prohibition under Municipal Ordinance No. 357.

On December 27, 2009, a significant fire occurred at the Bansalan Public Market, causing extensive damage and the destruction of fire hydrants belonging to the Bansalan Water District.
Private respondent Paul Jocson Arches filed a complaint on December 20, 2010 before the Office of the Ombudsman, alleging that the mayor’s permit issued in violation of the ordinance had contributed to the fire by giving unwarranted benefit to firecracker vendors.

The Office of the Ombudsman, through Ombudsman-Mindanao, launched a preliminary investigation into the matter.
Key public officials—including Reyes, Permits and Licensing Officer Designate Domingo, Chief of Police de Castilla, and Fire Marshall Andres—became involved when their counter-affidavits were submitted.
Notably, Reyes contended that two different counter-affidavits were filed by Andres and that he was not furnished a copy of the second affidavit, alleging procedural irregularity.

On March 20, 2013, the Office of the Ombudsman issued a Resolution finding probable cause to indict the petitioner (Reyes) along with co-respondents (Domingo, de Castilla, and Andres) for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
The Resolution determined that, as public officers, the respondents, by issuing the mayor’s permit in clear violation of the municipal ordinance and without the required Fire Safety Inspection Certificate (FSIC), conferred an unwarranted benefit on the firecracker vendors.
The Ombudsman’s determination emphasized that the issuance of the permit was tainted by bad faith, manifest partiality, or gross inexcusable negligence.
Subsequent filings included an Information before the Sandiganbayan reflecting these findings and charging the respondents with the said violation.

Petitioner Reyes argued that there was no sufficient legal basis for finding probable cause, contending that the permit was in line with a long-standing practice during the Christmas season and that all firecracker vendors were treated similarly provided they complied with requirements.
Reyes maintained that actions performed in the discharge of official duty are presumed to be in good faith and that any mistakes, absent malice or gross negligence, should not render him criminally liable.
He further argued that relying solely on one of Andres’ counter-affidavits—which was not furnished to him—violated his right to due process.
Additionally, in support of his request for injunctive relief, he claimed that the continuation of the criminal process would lead to financial, emotional, and psychological hardships for him and his family.

Private respondent Arches defended the finding of probable cause and refuted the existence of any ground for enjoining the criminal prosecution.
The Office of the Ombudsman contended that petitioner Reyes failed to demonstrate grave abuse of discretion in the conduct of the preliminary investigation and emphasized the sufficiency of the evidence adduced.
The resolution and subsequent actions were based on the sound exercise of the Ombudsman’s constitutional mandate to investigate and prosecute offenses committed by public officers.

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in concluding that probable cause existed to charge petitioner Reyes and his co-respondents for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019.

The petitioner argued that the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, manifest partiality, or gross inexcusable negligence.
It was contended that the long-standing practice of granting permits during the Christmas season negated any claim that undue or unwarranted benefit was conferred on the firecracker vendors.

Whether petitioner Reyes’ due process rights were violated by not being furnished a copy of the second counter-affidavit (filed by Andres).

The petitioner claimed that his right to a fair preliminary investigation was compromised because he was unable to examine all evidence against him.
The issue also raised questions about the scope of a respondent’s right to access evidence submitted by co-respondents during preliminary investigation.

Whether the facts presented during the preliminary investigation sufficiently supported the finding of probable cause to indict Reyes and his co-respondents.

The central focus is on the interpretation of the standard “probable cause” and whether it requires more than a mere showing of a reasonable belief of guilt, especially in administrative or preliminary proceedings.