Title
Dichaves vs. Office of the Ombudsman
Case
G.R. No. 206310-11
Decision Date
Dec 7, 2016
Jaime Dichaves charged with plunder over "Jose Velarde" account linked to Estrada; SC upheld Ombudsman's probable cause finding, affirming due process.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 206310-11)

Petitioner, Respondents, Dockets and Core Accusations

Two consolidated Ombudsman complaints were docketed as OMB‑0‑01‑0211 and OMB‑0‑01‑0291. The allegations included direct and indirect bribery, corruption of public officials, violations of PD No. 46 and RA No. 6713, and plunder under RA No. 7080. The complaints implicated Dichaves in connection with the “Jose Velarde” bank accounts and in the procurement by government financial institutions of Belle Corporation shares, alleging commissions/kickbacks and collusion with Estrada and others.

Key Dates and Procedural Milestones (selected from the record)

House impeachment of Estrada: November 13, 2000; Senate impeachment events and sealed second envelope: January 2001; Estrada considered resigned and subject to prosecution: January 20, 2001; information and amended information for plunder filed by the Ombudsman in People v. Estrada (Criminal Case No. 26558): April 4 and April 18, 2001; warrant of arrest against Dichaves: January 29, 2002 (unserved as Dichaves had left the country); Sandiganbayan decision convicting Estrada of plunder: September 12, 2007 (later pardoned); Sandiganbayan order for Ombudsman reinvestigation of Dichaves: July 1, 2011; Ombudsman preliminary investigation commenced: December 7, 2011; Ombudsman Joint Resolution finding probable cause versus Dichaves: March 14, 2012; denial of reconsideration by Ombudsman: February 4, 2013; petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court and procedural history including TRO and other orders culminating in the Supreme Court’s resolution dismissing the petition.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

The decision applied the 1987 Constitution as the controlling charter for the Ombudsman’s powers and for accused rights in criminal prosecutions (notably Article XI provisions creating and empowering the Ombudsman and Article III, Section 14(2) on rights in criminal prosecutions). Statutory authorities invoked include Republic Act No. 7080 (plunder), RA No. 6713, PD No. 46, and Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989). The Court relied on the Ombudsman’s constitutional and statutory investigatory and prosecutorial latitude in determining probable cause.

Factual Allegations Concerning the “Jose Velarde” Accounts

Complainants alleged that an Equitable‑PCIBank savings account (No. 0160‑62501‑5) and related accounts were opened under the fictitious name “Jose Velarde” with minimal initial deposit, and that substantial deposits and withdrawals thereafter were attributable to Estrada (who allegedly used the alias) and to amounts traceable to commissions, kickbacks or contributions. Specific items included a P500 million withdrawal (affixed with the signature “Jose Velarde”) and deposits totaling amounts such as P189.7 million and other listed sums allegedly originating from businessmen and cronies.

Factual Allegations Concerning the Belle Corporation Transactions

Complainants alleged that, at Estrada’s direction, GSIS purchased approximately 351,878,000 Belle shares (about P1,102,965,607.50) and SSS purchased approximately 329,855,000 Belle shares (about P744,612,450), totaling roughly P1.85 billion. Allegedly, a commission/profit of about P189.7 million was paid as payoff, that this payoff was delivered by Belle associates through a check issued by Eastern Securities Development Corporation (I‑Bank Check No. 6000159271), that this check was handed to Dichaves, and that Dichaves deposited it into the “Jose Velarde” account, thereby funneling benefits to Estrada.

Evidentiary Basis Recited by the Ombudsman

The Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause rested principally on: (1) the contents of the sealed second envelope (as published and summarized in the complaints); (2) the transactional history and deposits in the “Jose Velarde” accounts; (3) the circumstances surrounding the GSIS and SSS acquisitions of Belle shares; and (4) affidavits and statements from witnesses including Carlos Arellano, Federico Pascual, Mark Jimenez, and pretrial testimony/affidavits of Willy Ng Ocier, among others. The Ombudsman also noted that certain conclusions in People v. Estrada (Sandiganbayan, 2007) were of public record and could be considered.

Procedural Posture of Dichaves and Pretrial Conduct

Dichaves left the Philippines following the impeachment events and could not be located when an arrest warrant issued in 2002; no subpoena was served. He resurfaced in November 2010 and sought reinvestigation and later filed motions, including a Motion to Quash and motions related to travel. The Sandiganbayan ordered reinvestigation and recalled an earlier warrant; the Ombudsman later conducted a preliminary investigation leading to the March 14, 2012 Joint Resolution finding probable cause. Dichaves filed certiorari in the Supreme Court challenging the Ombudsman resolutions and sought to enjoin arraignment and trial; the Supreme Court issued interim reliefs and handled several procedural motions, travel requests and bond matters during the litigation.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The principal legal question was whether the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion in finding probable cause to charge Dichaves with plunder. Subsumed within this question were three contentions: (1) Dichaves was deprived of the opportunity to cross‑examine witnesses (rendering testimonial evidence inadmissible/hearsay); (2) the Ombudsman considered evidence not presented during the preliminary investigation; and (3) there was no probable cause to charge him with plunder.

Legal Standards: Ombudsman’s Authority and Probable Cause Threshold

The Court reiterated the constitutional and statutory doctrine of non‑interference: the Ombudsman is an independent constitutional officer with broad investigatory and prosecutorial functions (Article XI of the 1987 Constitution and RA 6770). The determination of probable cause by the Ombudsman is executive in nature and fact‑intensive; judicial intervention is exceptional and requires proof of grave abuse of discretion amounting to capriciousness or whimsical conduct. At the preliminary investigation stage the standard is substantial evidence and a “more likely‑than‑not” belief; technical rules of evidence and the full panoply of trial rights (including confrontation and cross‑examination under Article III, Section 14(2)) are not yet triggered.

Court’s Analysis on Right to Cross‑Examine and Evidentiary Rules

The Court held that Dichaves had no right to cross‑examine witnesses during the Ombudsman’s preliminary investigation, because the rights to confrontation and full trial safeguards arise after the filing of an information and upon arraignment and trial. Those procedural rights are statutory and constitutional protections crystallizing at the stage of criminal prosecution, not during the preliminary inquiry. The Court also emphasized that the public prosecutor (including the Ombudsman) is not bound by technical rules of evidence in making a probable cause determination; the inquiry requires factual and practical considerations rather than the evidentiary rigor of full trial.

Court’s Analysis on Reliance upon Prior Proceedings and Evidence

The Court rejected the claim that the Ombudsman improperly based its resolution on the impeac

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms