Case Summary (G.R. No. 232968)
Ground for Petitions
Clarete's petition in G.R. No. 232968 seeks to nullify the Ombudsman's Resolution which found probable cause for charges of multiple violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019) and malversation of public funds against her. Yap's petition in G.R. No. 232974 contest similar findings and charges of malversation through falsification. The petitions stem from a composite factual backdrop primarily focusing on misuse of PDAF.
Background of Allegations
The allegations arose from findings in the SAO Report No. 2012-03, which indicated irregularities in the disbursement of PDAF, including fund releases for projects outside the districts of the sponsoring legislators and IAs' non-compliance with relevant regulations. The Office of the Ombudsman conducted investigations leading to the filing of criminal complaints based on these findings.
Conspiracy and Misuse of Funds
Clarete was implicated in a conspiracy involving the misallocation of PHP 65 million in PDAF, with the funds intended for projects implemented by non-government organizations (NGOs) that allegedly did not deliver any actual services or items to beneficiaries. Investigations revealed that fabricated documentation was submitted to facilitate the release of funds, leading to charges against multiple public and private individuals.
Charges Against Petitioners
The Ombudsman found probable cause against Clarete for 18 counts of violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, seven counts of malversation of public funds, and 11 counts of malversation through falsification. Yap was similarly charged with two counts of the Anti-Graft Law violations and malversation. Both petitioners sought reconsideration of these findings, which was denied by the Ombudsman.
Grounds for Certiorari
In G.R. No. 232968, Clarete raises multiple arguments contesting the Ombudsman's actions including alleged grave abuse of discretion regarding due process, improper basis for the finding of probable cause, and inadequacy of evidence. Yap's petition in G.R. No. 232974 asserted a lack of probable cause, inordinate delay in the preliminary investigation, and absence of evidence directly linking him to the offenses.
Judicial Determination and Mootness
The Supreme Court ruled that the issues raised by Clarete and Yap regarding the Ombudsman's findings became moot after the Sandiganbayan had judicially determined probable cause. Therefore, the certiorari petitions concerning the Ombudsman’s findings were dismissed.
Favorable Ruling for Yap
In contrast, the Court granted Yap's petition in G.R. Nos. 238584-87, emphasizing the Sandiganbayan’s grave abuse of d
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 232968)
Overview of the Case
- This case involves three consolidated petitions for certiorari filed by two petitioners, Marina P. Clarete and Arthur Cua Yap, against the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) and the Sandiganbayan (SBN).
- The petitions arise from allegations of misuse and misappropriation of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) allocations for the years 2007 to 2009.
- The underlying issues include the finding of probable cause by the OMB for various counts of violations under Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and malversation of public funds.
Background
- The consolidated cases stem from the findings of a Special Audits Office (SAO) report of the Commission on Audit (COA) that highlighted irregularities in the release and utilization of PDAF.
- The SAO report indicated that funds were improperly allocated and that implementing agencies failed to utilize the funds as intended, leading to the initiation of a complaint against Clarete and others.
- Clarete’s PDAF, totaling PHP 65 million, was disbursed to several non-government organizations (NGOs) for livelihood projects, which were later found to be "ghost projects" with no actual distribution of benefits.
Allegations Against Clarete and Yap
- Clarete faces multiple charges, including 18 counts of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, seven counts of malversation of public funds, and 11 counts of malversation through falsification.
- Yap, as the former Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, faces two c