Title
People vs. Sandiganbayan
Case
G.R. No. 219824-25
Decision Date
Feb 12, 2019
PDAF scam case involving misappropriation of public funds; Sandiganbayan dismissed charges against DBM officials for lack of probable cause, upheld by SC.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 246332)

Petitioner

The People of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Ombudsman through the Office of the Special Prosecutor, prosecuted the case and filed the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 challenging the Sandiganbayan’s dismissal of two criminal cases insofar as they were dismissed against Relampagos, Bare, NuAez and Paule.

Respondents

Mario L. Relampagos, Marilou D. Bare, Rosario S. NuAez, and Lalaine N. Paule — DBM officials/staff who moved for judicial re‑determination of probable cause and whose dismissal by the Sandiganbayan is the subject of the Ombudsman’s petition.

Key Dates

  • Alleged acts: 2007 (PDAF disbursements covered by 2007 SAROs).
  • Ombudsman Joint Resolution finding probable cause: September 26, 2014.
  • Sandiganbayan Resolution partly dismissing cases for lack of probable cause: May 13, 2015.
  • Sandiganbayan denial of partial reconsideration: July 9, 2015.
  • Petition for certiorari (filed under Rule 65): September 8, 2015.
  • Supreme Court decision affirming Sandiganbayan: February 12, 2019.

Applicable Law and Rules

  • 1987 Constitution — particularly Article III, Section 2 (probable cause and judicial determination for warrants).
  • Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti‑Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), Section 3(e).
  • Article 217, Revised Penal Code (malversation).
  • Rules of Criminal Procedure: Rule 112 Section 5 (judicial determination of probable cause/warrant issuance), Rule 122 Section 1 (appeal from final order), Rule 45 (petition for review on certiorari raising questions of law).
  • Presidential Decree No. 1606 as amended by R.A. No. 7975 (Sandiganbayan appellate jurisdiction).
  • DBM National Budget Circular No. 476 (documentary requirements for SAROs/NCAs).
  • RA No. 9184 (government procurement/public bidding requirements referenced in the allegations).

Factual Background: the PDAF/Napoles Scheme as Alleged

According to the prosecution’s theory, lawmakers (or Napoles) negotiated projects and a Napoles‑controlled NGO as implementer; Benhur Luy prepared “listings” of projects and costs; lawmakers sought release of PDAF allocations which were endorsed to the DBM; the DBM issued SAROs and NCAs to implementing agencies; implementing agencies (e.g., TRC) entered into MOAs with Napoles NGOs (e.g., CARED) and issued checks that were later withdrawn by Napoles and her agents. The COA special audit (COA SAO Report No. 2012‑03) and Luy’s testimony were relied upon as proof of the scheme.

Ombudsman Proceedings and Findings

The NBI and the Ombudsman’s Field Investigation Office filed complaints and, in a Joint Resolution dated September 26, 2014, the Ombudsman found probable cause against several public officers, including Relampagos and the other DBM staff, for three counts under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and three counts of malversation. The Ombudsman’s findings emphasized that Relampagos and his office processed SAROs and NCAs pertaining to Jaraula’s PDAF projects and allegedly exhibited manifest partiality by expediting processing favoring Napoles.

Informations Filed and Nature of the Charges

The Ombudsman filed multiple Informations before the Sandiganbayan: three for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and three for malversation (Article 217, RPC). The two cases at issue (SB‑15‑CRM‑0017 and SB‑15‑CRM‑0020) concerned SARO No. ROCS‑07‑05450 and accused the DBM respondents of facilitating the SARO and NCA issuance resulting in the release of P9,600,000 to CARED and eventual diversion to Napoles.

Sandiganbayan Proceedings and Dismissal of Two Cases

The Sandiganbayan initially found probable cause to issue warrants against most accused but deferred determination of probable cause against Relampagos, NuAez, Paule and Bare for the SARO No. ROCS‑07‑05450 cases, pending production of the actual SARO. After the prosecution submitted a certified true copy of SARO No. ROCS‑07‑05450, the Sandiganbayan examined it and found that the SARO was signed by DBM Secretary Rolando G. Andaya, Jr., not by Relampagos or the other respondents. Because the Ombudsman’s indictment of the DBM respondents rested on their alleged participation in preparation and issuance of that SARO, the Sandiganbayan concluded there was no sufficient ground for probable cause as to those respondents and dismissed Criminal Case Nos. SB‑15‑CRM‑0017 and SB‑15‑CRM‑0020 insofar as they named them.

Issues Raised in the Petition

The Ombudsman’s petition asserted (A) that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion by dismissing the cases because the determination of probable cause to file an Information is an executive function vested in the Ombudsman/prosecution; and (B) that the Sandiganbayan improperly relied on a single piece of evidence (the SARO) while disregarding other prosecution evidence (Luy’s affidavit, COA findings).

Procedural Ruling: Improper Use of Rule 65 Certiorari

The Supreme Court held that certiorari under Rule 65 was not the proper remedy to challenge the Sandiganbayan’s final dismissal order. The correct remedy was an appeal by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 (raising only questions of law) from a final order of the Sandiganbayan, in accordance with Rule 122 and the Sandiganbayan’s appellate scheme. The Court noted petitioner’s Rule 65 filing was untimely even if treated as a Rule 45 petition, and that misapplication of procedural mode ordinarily requires dismissal of the petition. However, the Court proceeded to address the merits for reasons of judicial economy.

Judicial Authority to Determine Probable Cause

The Court reiterated the two distinct stages of probable‑cause determination: the executive (prosecutorial) stage during preliminary investigation and the judicial stage when a court evaluates the prosecutor’s resolution and supporting evidence. Once an Information is filed and the court acquires jurisdiction, the court has the constitutional duty to personally determine the existence of probable cause under Article III, Section 2 and Rule 112, Section 5. Thus, the Sandiganbayan acted within its power when it personally examined the SARO and other materials and made a judicial determination to dismiss the relevant cases for lack of probable cause.

Merits: Evaluation of the Evidence Concerning SARO No. ROCS‑07‑05450

On the substantive merits, the Court found the Sandiganbayan reasonably concluded that the prosecution’s central allegation—participation by Relampagos and his staff in preparing and issuing SARO No. ROCS‑07‑05450—w

...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