Case Summary (G.R. No. 210488)
Petitioner and Respondents
Petitioner: Jose Miguel T. Arroyo.
Respondents: Hon. Sandiganbayan Fifth Division; The People of the Philippines represented by the Office of the Solicitor General.
Key Dates
• 2009: PNP procures three Robinson R44 helicopters from MAPTRA for ₱104.985 million. Only one unit was brand-new; two units (SN 1372, 1374) were allegedly pre-owned by Arroyo.
• May 30, 2012: Ombudsman’s Special Investigating Panel issues Joint Resolution finding probable cause for violation of Section 3(e), Republic Act No. 3019.
• August 15 & November 6, 2013: Sandiganbayan denies Arroyo’s Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause.
• January 27, 2020: Supreme Court dismisses certiorari petition, affirms Sandiganbayan resolutions.
• December 1, 2021: Supreme Court resolves Arroyo’s Motion for Reconsideration of its January 2020 Decision.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (post-1990 decision) – separation of powers; due process; right to speedy disposition of cases (Art. III, § 16).
• Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), Section 3(e) – criminalizes private individuals acting in conspiracy with public officers, causing undue injury or granting unwarranted benefits.
• Rules of Court, Rule 112 – defines “probable cause” for executive (preliminary investigation) and judicial (warrant of arrest) determinations.
• Corporation Code, Section 63 – governs valid transfer of corporate shares and recording in corporate books.
Facts of the Alleged Anomalous Procurement
In 2009, the PNP purchased one new Robinson R44 Raven II and two Robinson R44 Raven I helicopters from MAPTRA. National Police Commission rules required brand-new units, yet two delivered units bore serial numbers indicating prior ownership. Po testified that Arroyo had financed and directed the importation of five helicopters in 2003 via deposits to Robinson Helicopter Company, coursed through Asian Spirit (for tax-exempt import). He claimed to have signed deeds of sale at Arroyo’s behest and to have provided maintenance billing directly to Arroyo, who allegedly paid in cash. Negotiations culminated in MAPTRA’s sale of the two pre-owned units to PNP in December 2009.
Evidence at Preliminary Investigation
Prosecution evidence included:
• Po’s affidavit and Senate testimony implicating Arroyo in ownership and sale of helicopters.
• Sinumpaang Salaysay of a Lionair dispatcher confirming Arroyo’s instructions on helicopter use.
• Subsidiary ledger of Lionair showing ₱18.25 million in hangar, maintenance, fuel, and registration fees paid by Arroyo and family (2004–2011).
• Alleged trust relationship and beneficial ownership by Arroyo despite registration under Asian Spirit and Lionair.
Defense evidence included:
• Export certificates, Airworthiness certificates, ATO registration documents, and invoices showing Lionair (Po) as registered owner.
• Deed of Assignment and accompanying tax receipts and BIR Certificate (Form 1954) to prove Arroyo’s divestment of shares in Lourdes T. Arroyo, Inc. (LTA) in 2001 and reacquisition only in 2010.
• Counter-affidavits denying any nexus with MAPTRA or Hilario De Vera and asserting that LTA, not Arroyo personally, financed the helicopter acquisition.
Procedural History
- Ombudsman’s Joint Resolution (May 30, 2012): Finds probable cause for conspiracy under Section 3(e), RA 3019; rejects Arroyo’s contention of valid divestment from LTA.
- Sandiganbayan Resolutions (Aug 15, Nov 6 2013): Deny Arroyo’s Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause; affirm Ombudsman findings; Sandiganbayan exercises independent judicial evaluation.
- Supreme Court Decision (Jan 27, 2020): Dismisses Rule 65 petition; holds no grave abuse of discretion by Ombudsman or Sandiganbayan; petition moot due to Sandiganbayan’s independent probable-cause finding.
- Motion for Reconsideration (Dec 2021): Arroyo challenges absence of conspiracy evidence, misappreciation of corporate separateness, and alleged denial of speedy disposition.
Legal Standards on Probable Cause and Non-Interference
• Executive probable cause (preliminary investigation): “sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief” that a crime was committed and the respondent is probably guilty (Rule 112, Sec. 1).
• Judicial probable cause (warrant of arrest): judge must personally evaluate prosecutor’s resolution and supporting evidence (Rule 112, Sec. 5(a)).
• Separation of functions: Executive branch (Ombudsman) determines probable cause for indictment; Courts afford wide deference and will intervene only upon “grave abuse of discretion” (arbitrary, capricious, despotic conduct) by the Ombudsman.
• Section 3(e) RA 3019 requires (a) a public officer or private individual in conspiracy with one; (b) manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence; (c) undue injury or unwarranted benefit.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on Grave Abuse of Discretion
The Court revisited the Ombudsman’s and Sandiganbayan’s findings, emphasizing
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 210488)
Factual Background
- In 2009, the Philippine National Police (PNP) purchased one brand-new Robinson R44 Raven II helicopter (₱42,312,913.10) and two Standard Robinson R44 Raven I helicopters (₱62,672,086.90), totaling ₱104,985,000.00.
- National Police Commission rules required all helicopters to be brand new, yet only one new unit was delivered; the two Raven I helicopters (SN 1372 and 1374) were allegedly pre-owned by petitioner Arroyo.
- Through the Ombudsman’s Field Investigation Office (FIO-OMB), a complaint was lodged against Arroyo, his brother, MAPTRA president De Vera, and PNP officials for violations of RA 3019, Section 3(e) and (g).
- The FIO-OMB relied primarily on the affidavit and Senate Blue Ribbon testimony of Archibald L. Po (owner of Lionair and Asian Spirit), who narrated how Arroyo:
- In 2003 inquired about chartering helicopters; agreed to purchase five Robinson R44 Raven I units at US$95,000 each (plus expenses), and wired a total deposit of US$475,000 to Robinson Helicopter Company via Lionair.
- Sought to import the units through Asian Spirit for tax-free status; signed deeds of sale but retained no copies; paid maintenance bills in cash.
- In mid-2009 negotiated the sale of two Raven I helicopters to MAPTRA at US$448,173.73 each, allegedly making MAPTRA appear as Lionair’s marketing arm; turnover occurred in December 2009, and full payment was remitted to Arroyo in April 2010.
Petitioner's Denials and Documentary Evidence
- Personally denied any connection with MAPTRA or its president De Vera; claimed that Lourdes T. Arroyo, Inc. (LTA), under his brother Iggy, advanced funds to Lionair for the purchase.
- Asserted he divested from LTA on March 15, 2001 (Deed of Assignment to Araneta) and only reacquired shares on November 24, 2010.
- Explained the US$475,000 deposit as an advance-lease scheme, to be applied against helicopter rentals.
- Submitted documentary proof showing Lionair (not Arroyo) as purchaser/owner:
- FAA-authenticated Applications for Export Certificate of Airworthiness and Export Certificates.
- RHC invoices and Air Transportation Office certificates of registration.
- Deeds of Absolute Sale (March 2004) between Lionair and Asian Spirit; Secretary’s Certificates; Aircraft Lease Agreement.
Ombudsman’s Preliminary Investigation and Joint Resolution
- May 30, 2012: Special Investigating Panel recommended criminal charges against Arroyo for RA 3019 Section 3(e).
- Ombudsman’s findings:
- Deed of Assignment lacked entry in LTA’s stock and transfer book, rendering divestment ineffective as to third parties per Corporation Code Sec. 63.
- Irrevocable proxy clause evidenced Arroyo’s continuing beneficial ownership despite assignment.
- Sinumpaang Salaysay of Lionair flight dispatcher Domingo Lazo: Arroyo gave usage instructions as early as April 2004.
- Frequent payments by Arroyo (₱18,250,000.00) to Lionair for hangar fees, maintenance, pilotage, fuel, and renewals; family usage of helicopters.
- The LTA-Lionair lease agreement (Agreement No. 5) was simulated: advance payments inconsistent with prior deposit for purchase.
- Concluded a trust relationship between Poe and Arroyo; beneficial ownership by Arroyo, whose consent was crucial for the MAPTRA-PNP sale.
Sandiganbayan Proceedings on Probable Cause
- Information SB-12-CRM-0164 charged Arroyo and others with conspiracy to violate RA 3019 Section 3(e), alleging undue injury of at least ₱34,632,187.50 to the PNP.
- Arroyo voluntarily surrendered, posted bail, and filed a Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause (May 27, 2013), contesting lack of probable cause.
- Sandiganbayan Resolution (Aug. 15, 2013): denied motion; held that prosecution’s evidence established probable cause against Arroyo.
- Motion for Reconsideration denied in Resolution (Nov. 6, 2013), reaffirming sufficient basis to proceed to trial.
Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 and Supreme Court Decision
- January 20, 2015: Arroyo filed a Rule 65 petition with prayer for TRO/PI, challenging Sandiganbayan’s resolutions for lack of direct evidence, reliance on uncorroborated Po testimony, and absence of conspiracy proofs.
- Reiterated documentary proofs of Lionair/Asian Spirit ownership, divestment from LTA, lack of any overt acts linking him to MAPTRA or De Vera.
- OSG Comment: maintained that Ombudsman’s determination of probable cause lies within its discretion; preliminary investigation not for exhaustive evidence display.
- Reply: underscored Po and Sia’s clarifications that LTA, not Arroyo, funded the initial deposit; contested hearsay reliance on Lazo.
- January 27, 2020 Decision: petition dismissed; Sandiganbayan’s August and November 2013 Resolutions affirmed.
- Grounded on non-interference policy with Ombudsman’s determination of probable cause absent grave abuse of discretion.
- Found no grave abuse; evidence supported reasonable belief that Arroyo owned the helicopters; mere disagreement with evidence appreciation not jurisdictional error.
Subsequent Motion for Reconsideration Before the Court
- Arroyo’s Motion for Reconsideration (filed post-Decision): urged reconsideration based on alleged overwhelming proof that Lionair/Asian Spirit owned the helicopters; reliance on Sia and Po’s testimonies; failure to establish conspiracy with public officers.
- OSG Opposition: characterized arguments as rehash of earlier petition; no new grounds for reconsideration.
- Supplemental Reply: emphasized necessity of first establishing conspiracy in RA 3019 Section 3(e) case against a private individual; questioned Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction absent such proof.
Issues Presented on Reconsideration
- Whether Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause and exercising jurisdiction over Arroyo despite absence of evidence of