Case Summary (G.R. No. 212593-94)
Petitioners
• Jessica Lucila G. Reyes
• Janet Lim Napoles
• Jo Christine L. Napoles
• James Christopher L. Napoles
• John Raymund De Asis
Respondents
• The Honorable Ombudsman (Conchita Carpio Morales)
• The Sandiganbayan (Third Division and a Special Third Division)
• People of the Philippines
Key Dates
• September 16, 2013 – NBI files Complaint for Plunder (OMB-C-C-13-0318).
• November 18, 2013 – Ombudsman’s Field Investigation Office files Complaint for Plunder and RA 3019 violations (OMB-C-C-13-0396).
• March 28, 2014 – Ombudsman issues Joint Resolution finding probable cause.
• June 4, 2014 – Ombudsman denies motions for reconsideration in Joint Order.
• July 3 & 4, 2014 – Sandiganbayan issues Resolutions finding probable cause and denying motions to suspend proceedings.
• September 29 & November 14, 2014 – Special Third Division finds probable cause and sets arraignments for the Napoles siblings.
• June–August 2014 – Various petitions for certiorari filed in the Supreme Court.
• March 15, 2016 – Supreme Court Decision rendered.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (probable-cause requirement under Bill of Rights, Art. III, § 2).
• Republic Act No. 7080, as amended (Plunder).
• Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), Section 3(e).
• Rules of Court, Rule 112 (Preliminary Investigation), Rule 119 (State Witnesses), Rule 65 (Certiorari).
Factual Background
Whistleblowers testified and corroborated by documentary evidence that Senator Enrile’s PDAF allocations were funneled through JLN-controlled NGOs in exchange for 40–60% kickbacks.
• Projects were fictitious (“ghost projects”).
• Disbursement process involved Senator Enrile’s office (via Reyes or Ruby Tuason), Janet Napoles, and her staff (including Luy, Sula, SuAas, and De Asis).
• Checks were picked up or obtained on spurious documents, deposited in NGO accounts, withdrawn in cash, and delivered as kickbacks.
• Estimated total kickbacks to Senator Enrile reached at least ₱172,834,500.
Procedural History
- Complaints filed by NBI and Ombudsman.
- Preliminary investigation before Ombudsman: petitions for copies, motions to dismiss, and motions for reconsideration were denied; probable cause was found on March 28 and June 4, 2014.
- Ombudsman files Informations with Sandiganbayan: one count of Plunder and fifteen counts of RA 3019 violations against each petitioner (where applicable).
- Sandiganbayan conducts judicial determination of probable cause, issues warrants (July 3 & 4, 2014), and sets arraignments (September 29 and November 14, 2014).
- Petitions for certiorari filed in the Supreme Court challenging Ombudsman and Sandiganbayan resolutions.
Issue
Whether the Ombudsman and/or the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause against the petitioners for Plunder and violations of Section 3(e) of RA 3019.
Legal Standards
• Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious, arbitrary exercise of judgment tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
• Preliminary investigation requires only a prima facie showing (“probable cause”) – more than bare suspicion but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt. Hearsay and evidence from state witnesses are admissible at this stage.
• Immunity grants to state witnesses are a prosecutorial tactic and must be deferred to absent clear rule violations.
• Judicial determination of probable cause (for arrest warrants) must be made independently by the trial court under the 1987 Constitution, but reliance on the Ombudsman’s records is permitted if an independent evaluation is shown.
Findings: Ombudsman’s Exercise of Discretion
• Whistleblower testimony (Benhur Luy, Marina Sula, Merlina SuAas, Ruby Tuason) was corroborated by:
– JLN business ledgers and vouchers.
– COA special audit report documenting irregular PDAF disbursements.
– FIO field verification showing non-existent projects.
• Petitioners’ defenses (forgery claims, hearsay objections, procedural complaints) are matters of trial-level proof and do not negate probable cause.
• Due process was observed: petitioners received notice, filed counter-affidavits, and were afforded opportunities to comment.
• Witness immun
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 212593-94)
Background and Consolidation
- Multiple petitions were filed chiefly by Jessica Lucila G. Reyes, Janet Lim Napoles, Jo Christine L. Napoles, James Christopher L. Napoles, and John Raymund De Asis.
- The petitions assailed:
• The Office of the Ombudsman’s March 28, 2014 Joint Resolution (OMB-C-C-13-0318 and OMB-C-C-13-0396) finding probable cause for Plunder (RA 7080) and Section 3(e) of RA 3019.
• The Ombudsman’s June 4, 2014 Joint Order denying motions for reconsideration.
• Sandiganbayan Resolutions of July 3 and July 4, 2014 (Criminal Case SB-14-CRM-0238 and SB-14-CRM-0241 to 0255) finding probable cause and denying petitions to suspend proceedings.
• Sandiganbayan Resolutions of September 29 and November 14, 2014 (Third Division) setting arraignments of the Napoles siblings.
Facts of the Case
- From 2004 to 2010, Senator Juan Ponce Enrile’s Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) allocations totaling ₱172,834,500.00 were allegedly diverted into JLN-controlled NGOs.
- Whistleblowers Benhur Luy, Marina Sula, and Merlina SuAas described a modus operandi involving:
• “Business propositions” between Janet Lim Napoles and legislators (Enrile, Estrada, Revilla, among others) for percentages (“kickbacks”) of PDAF.
• Preparation and fraudulent endorsement of project proposals, letters, SARO/NCA requests, and forged liquidation documents.
• Use of codenames and spurious vouchers to conceal recipients. - Key roles:
• Reyes (Chief of Staff of Senator Enrile) endorsed NGOs, signed documents, and personally received portions of the diverted funds.
• Janet Lim Napoles masterminded the scheme, created NGOs as conduits, handled spurious receipts, and remitted funds to JLN Corporation.
• Jo Christine and James Napoles (JLN Corporation officers) managed falsified liquidations, handled deposited proceeds, and participated in fund diversion.
• De Asis (driver/bodyguard/messenger) prepared documents, collected checks, deposited NGO funds, and delivered money to Janet Napoles.
Complaints, Counters, and Motions
- Two complaints were lodged:
- NBI Complaint for Plunder (OMB-C-C-13-0318) filed September 16, 2013.
- FIO Complaint for Plunder and RA 3019 violations (OMB-C-C-13-0396) filed November 18, 2013.
- Petitioners’ counter-affidavits and defenses:
• Reyes alleged document forgery, lack of direct witness statements, and due-process violations in withholding Tuason’s Sworn Statement.
• Napoles siblings argued insufficiency of form and substance in complaints and lack of demonstrated conspiracy.
• De Asis admitted employment roles but denied criminal intent or benefit. - Janet Lim Napoles failed to file any counter-affidavit and was deemed to have waived the right.
Proceedings before the Ombudsman
- Reyes filed omnibus motions to secure witness affidavits (Tuason, Cunanan) and hearing transcripts; motions were denied based on procedural rules and confidentiality of immunity agreements.
- The Ombudsman g