Facts:

The case involves Wenceslao "Wally" A. Sombero, Jr. as the petitioner against the Office of the Ombudsman and the National Bureau of Investigation as respondents. The events leading to this case began on December 16, 2016, when Sombero filed a Complaint-Affidavit with the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) against Bureau of Immigration (BI) Deputy Commissioners Al C. Argosino and Michael B. Robles for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019. This complaint was docketed as OMB-C-C-16-0525. Subsequently, on December 22, 2016, a second complaint was filed by then BI Acting Intelligence Chief Charles T. Calima, Jr., also against Argosino and Robles, which was docketed as OMB-C-C-17-0001. A third complaint was filed on January 26, 2017, by National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Director Dante A. Gierran, charging Argosino, Robles, Calima, Sombero, and Jack Lam with direct bribery and other violations, docketed as OMB-C-C-17-0089.

The complaints stemmed from a la...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Petitioner Wenceslao "Wally" A. Sombero, Jr. filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking to annul and set aside the Consolidated Resolution and Consolidated Order of the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB). The OMB found probable cause to indict Sombero and others for Plunder, Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), Direct Bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code, and Violation of Presidential Decree No. 46.

Complaints Filed

1. First Complaint (OMB-C-C-16-0525): Filed by Sombero on December 16, 2016, against Bureau of Immigration (BI) Deputy Commissioners Al C. Argosino and Michael B. Robles for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.
2. Second Complaint (OMB-C-C-17-0001): Filed by Charles T. Calima, Jr., Acting BI Intelligence Chief, on December 22, 2016, against Argosino and Robles for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and R.A. No. 7080 (Plunder).
3. Third Complaint (OMB-C-C-17-0089): Filed by NBI Director Dante A. Gierran on January 26, 2017, against Argosino, Robles, Calima, Sombero, and Jack Lam for Direct Bribery, Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, and PD 46.

Key Events

• On November 24, 2016, BI conducted a raid at Fontana Leisure Park and Casino, owned by Jack Lam, resulting in the arrest of 1,316 undocumented Chinese nationals.
• Sombero allegedly acted as an intermediary, arranging a meeting between Lam, Ng Khoen Hon (Lam's associate), and BI officials, including Argosino and Robles.
• On November 27, 2016, Sombero delivered P50 Million in cash to Argosino and Robles at the City of Dreams in Pasay City, allegedly as a bribe to secure the release of the detained Chinese nationals.
• Calima later exposed the transaction, leading to the resignation of Argosino and Robles and the filing of criminal charges.

OMB's Findings

• The OMB found probable cause to indict Sombero, Argosino, Robles, and others for Plunder, Direct Bribery, and violations of R.A. No. 3019 and PD 46. However, charges against Calima were dropped after it was determined that he acted as part of a counter-intelligence operation.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Probable Cause for Plunder: The Court emphasized that the OMB's finding of probable cause is based on substantial evidence, not absolute certainty. The elements of Plunder—public officials amassing ill-gotten wealth through a series of overt acts—were sufficiently established by the evidence, including affidavits and admissions by the respondents.
2. Due Process: The Court ruled that the OMB is not bound by the initial charges in the complaint. It has the authority to charge an offense different from the initial complaint if warranted by the evidence. Sombero's argument that he was not given notice of the Plunder charge was rejected, as the OMB's discretion in determining the proper charge is well within its constitutional mandate.
3. Main Plunderer Requirement: The Court clarified that the identification of a "main plunderer" is required in the Information filed in court, not necessarily during the preliminary investigation stage. Thus, Sombero's argument regarding the absence of a main plunderer was premature.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the OMB's findings, ruling that there was no grave abuse of discretion in its determination of probable cause. The case was referred to the Sandiganbayan for trial on the merits.