Case Summary (G.R. No. 135123)
Factual Background
The case arises from a complaint initiated by the PCGG against Herminio T. Disini and other individuals associated with Herdis Group, alleging violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019). The allegations stem from a transaction where on March 11, 1982, Disini, a known associate of Marcos, allegedly transferred substantial stock holdings from Vulcan Industrial and Mining Corporation and The Energy Corporation to Marcos. The stock certificates were discovered in Malacañang Palace post-1986, augmenting the allegations of corruption.
Ombudsman Proceedings
The Ombudsman, after referring the PCGG's complaint, received various responses from the private respondents. However, challenges arose in effectively serving notices to the respondents, with some being untraceable or outside the country since 1986. The only substantial defense came from Velayo, who argued that he was unrelated to the transactions in question.
Resolution and Reconsideration
The Ombudsman dismissed the PCGG's complaint through a resolution on May 2, 1997, citing a lack of evidence and subsequently denied the motion for reconsideration on May 28, 1998. The dismissal hinged on the determination that the evidence presented, primarily a letter from Disini to Marcos, lacked credibility and was classified as hearsay.
Petitioner’s Position
The petitioner contended that the Ombudsman exhibited grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the case. Specifically, the petitioner argued that the Ombudsman failed to recognize the evidentiary significance of the stock certificates and disregarded an affidavit from private respondent Manahan that described a divestment plan, which could indicate conspiracy and accountability on the part of the respondents.
Legal Standards for Probable Cause
The principle of probable cause, essential for filing information in court, was at the core of the dispute. Petitioner emphasized that the Ombudsman failed to engage appropriately with the evidence provided, including the stock certificates, which should constitute a basis for pursuing charges. The law requires only a reasonable belief that an offense has transpired, not a determination of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Supreme Court Ruling
The Supreme Court sided with the petitioner, ruling that the Ombudsman had indeed acted beyond its discretionary bounds by disregarding substantial evidence. The Court underscored the need to consider all evidence presented and rebuked the view that doubts around the authenticity of the letter from Disini negated the need for further investigation. This ruling establishes that proper understanding and utilization of evidence are critical in preliminary investigations concerning allegations o
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 135123)
Case Overview
- This case involves a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
- The petitioner is the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG).
- The respondents include Hon. Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto and several officers of Herdis Group of Companies, Inc.
- The primary issue is the dismissal of the PCGG's criminal complaint against the private respondents for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Background of the Case
- The PCGG, through Domingo G. Palarca, filed a complaint against Herminio T. Disini and other officers of Herdis Group for alleged violations of Republic Act No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
- It was alleged that on March 11, 1982, Disini, a friend of former President Ferdinand Marcos, transferred substantial shares (worth P40,000,000 and P25,000,000) of Vulcan Industrial and Mining Corporation (VIMC) and The Energy Corporation (TEC) to Marcos.
- The stock certificates were found in Malacañang after Marcos fled to Hawaii in February 1986.
Proceedings before the Ombudsman
- The Ombudsman issued an order on May 4, 1994, directing the respondent