Case Summary (G.R. No. 212761-62)
Charges and Preliminary Investigation
Two complaints allege: (1) Plunder under RA 7080, for amassing ill-gotten wealth (≥P50 million) through series of overt acts; (2) Eleven counts of violation of RA 3019, Sec. 3(e), for manifest partiality and evident bad faith, giving unwarranted benefits and causing undue injury to the government. After petitioners filed counter-affidavits (Estrada complied; De Asis and Napoles partly defaulted), the Ombudsman conducted an inquisitorial preliminary investigation under Rule 112.
Probable Cause Determination by the Ombudsman
In its March 28, 2014 Joint Resolution, the Ombudsman found:
• Estrada, as a public officer, received P183,793,750 in kickbacks in exchange for endorsing Napoles NGOs for PDAF projects, abusing official influence (RA 7080, Sec. 2 elements satisfied).
• Conspiracy with DBM and IA officials to divert P262.575 million to JLN-NGOs, causing undue injury of over P278 million, and bestowing unwarranted advantages (RA 3019, Sec. 3(e) elements met).
Motions for reconsideration were denied on Jun 4, 2014; multiple Informations were filed in Sandiganbayan.
Standard for Judicial Review of Ombudsman Decisions
Under the Constitution and RA 6770, the Ombudsman has broad discretion in investigating and prosecuting public officials. The Supreme Court maintains a policy of non-interference absent “grave abuse of discretion” (capricious, arbitrary exercise of judgment akin to lack of jurisdiction). Probable cause in a preliminary investigation requires “probability of guilt” based on facts and reasonable belief, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. Technical evidence rules and hearsay limitations do not rigidly apply at this stage.
Court’s Rationale on Probable Cause
The Court held that the Ombudsman did not gravely abuse its discretion:
• Factual Nexus: Uncontested endorsement letters bear Estrada’s signature recommending Napoles NGOs; whistleblowers’ affidavits and Luy’s ledgers corroborate kickback scheme; COA special audit and independent FIO field verifications confirm project irregularities and “ghost” projects.
• Legal Sufficiency: The elements of plunder (public office, overt acts, ≥P50 million ill-gotten wealth) and of RA 3019 Sec. 3(e) (public officer, bad faith/partiality, undue injury/unwarranted benefit) are reasonably apparent from the record.
• Deference
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 212761-62)
Relevant Facts
- Petitioners Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada, John Raymund de Asis, and Janet Lim Napoles were charged with Plunder under Section 2 of R.A. 7080 and with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019.
- The alleged scheme involved the diversion of Estrada’s PDAF (2004–2012) to NGOs controlled by Napoles, with petitioners receiving kickbacks and rebates.
- Two complaints were filed: (1) NBI’s Complaint for Plunder (OMB-C-C-13-0313, Sept. 16, 2013) and (2) Ombudsman FIO’s Complaint for Plunder and graft (OMB-C-C-13-0397, Nov. 18, 2013).
- Estrada allegedly endorsed fraudulent NGOs, received Php 183,793,750.00 in kickbacks, and caused undue injury exceeding Php 278,000,000.00.
- De Asis, as a driver/messenger/janitor, was accused of facilitating the deposit and transfer of PDAF checks to the Napoles NGOs.
Procedural History
- Ombudsman ordered petitioners to submit counter-affidavits; Estrada complied, De Asis and Napoles did not fully comply.
- March 28, 2014: Ombudsman issued Joint Resolution finding probable cause for one count of Plunder and eleven counts of graft (Sec. 3(e), R.A. 3019).
- Petitioners’ motions for reconsideration were denied by Joint Order dated June 4, 2014.
- Informations were filed before the Sandiganbayan charging petitioners accordingly.
- Petitioners filed separate certiorari petitions under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court.
Issue
- Whether