Revilla v. Ombudsman

Revilla v Ombudsman

Facts:

1.     Petitioners are all charged as co-conspirators for their respective participations in the illegal pillaging of public funds sourced from the PDAF of Sen. Revilla for the years 2006 to 2010, in the total amount of P517,000,000.00. The charges are contained in 2 complaints, namely: (1) a Complaint for Plunder filed by the NBI and (2) a Complaint for Plunder and violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 301918 filed by the Field Investigation Office of the Ombudsman

a.     Sen. Revilla, as Senator, for authorizing the illegal utilization, diversion, and disbursement of his allocated PDAF through his endorsement of fraudulent NGOs created and controlled by Napoles' JLN Corporation in relation to "ghost" PDAF-funded projects, and for receiving significant portions of the diverted PDAF funds as his "commission" or "kickback

b.     Cambe, as Chief of Staff of Sen. Revilla during the times material to this case, for processing the utilization, diversion, and disbursement of Sen. Revilla's PDAF, and for personally receiving his own "commission" or "kickback"

c.      Napoles, as the mastermind of the entire PDAF scam, for facilitating the illegal utilization, diversion, and disbursement of Sen. Revilla's PDAF through: (1) the commencement via "business propositions" with the legislator regarding his allocated PDAF; (2) the creation and operation of JLN-controlled NGOs to serve as "conduits" for "ghost" PDAF-funded projects; (3) the use of spurious receipts and liquidation documents to make it appear that the projects were implemented by her NGOs; (4) the falsification and machinations used in securing funds from the various implementing agencies (IAs) and in liquidating disbursements; and (5) the remittance of Sen. Revilla's PDAF for misappropriation

d.     Lim and De Asis, as staff employees of Napoles, for assisting in the fraudulent processing and releasing of the PDAF funds to the JLN­-controlled NGOs

e.     Relampagos, Nuñez, Paule, and Bare (Relampagos, et al.), as employees of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), for participating in the misuse or diversion of Sen. Revilla's PDAF, by acting as "contacts" of Napoles within the DBM, and thereby, assisting in the release of the Special Allotment Release Orders (SAROs) and Notices of Cash Allocation (NCAs) covering Sen. Revilla's PDAF

2.     Counter Affidavits:

a.     Revilla, contending that: (a) his and Cambe's signatures in the PDAF documents were forgeries; (b) the utilization of his PDAF had "always been regular and above-board"; (c) his involvement in the release of his PDAF is limited; and (d) there is "no credible proof" to show that he committed said illegal acts and that conspiracy exists between him and all the other persons involved in the PDAF scam

b.     Cambe, maintaining that: (a) his signatures in the PDAF documents were all forgeries; and (b) he did not receive any money from Sen. Revilla's PDAF nor connive with any of the alleged co-conspirators to acquire ill-gotten wealth.

c.      De Asis  admitting that: (a) he was an employee of the JLN Corporation; (b) he did pick up checks for JLN-controlled NGOs; and (c) he was an incorporator in one of the JLN-controlled NGOs; but denying that he personally benefited from the supposed misuse of Sen. Revilla's PDAF.

d.     Relampagos, et al.,  contended that: (a) there is no probable cause and factual or legal basis to indict them for the offenses charged; and (b) the criminal complaints did not specifically mention their names as among those who allegedly participated in the misuse of Sen. Revilla's PDAF.

3.     Ombudsman held that probable cause exists against Sen. Revilla, Cambe, Napoles, De Asis, and Lim for Plunder, considering that: (a) Sen. Revilla was a public officer at the time material to the charges; (b) with the help of his co-accused, who are public officers and private individuals, Sen. Revilla amassed, accumulated, or acquired ill-gotten wealth through their intricate modus operandi as described above; and (c) such ill-gotten wealth amounted to at least P224,512,500.00, way more than the threshold amount of P50,000,000.00 required in the crime ofPlunder.

In the same manner, the Ombudsman established probable cause to indict all the petitioners (along with several others), except Lim, for violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 in light of the following: (a) Sen. Revilla, Cambe, and Relampagos, et al. are all public officers, while private individuals Napoles and De Asis all conspired with these public officers; (b) said public officers exhibited manifest partiality to Napoles and her cohorts by favoring her controlled NGOs without the benefit of public bidding and without having been authorized by an appropriation law or ordinance, as legally mandated; (c) said public officers likewise exhibited their bad faith by unduly benefiting from the "ghost" PDAF-funded projects through the receipt of "commissions," "kickbacks," and the like; and (d) their collective acts caused undue injury to the government in the aggregate amount of P517,000,000.00

4.     MR denied, Informations were filed by the Ombudsman before the Sandiganbayan, charging: (a) Sen. Revilla, Cambe, Napoles, De Asis, and Lim of one (1) count of Plunderand (b) all the petitioners, except Lim, of sixteen (16) counts of violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019

5.     To forestall the service of the warrant of arrest against him, Sen. Revilla filed a Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause and Deferment and/or Suspension of Proceedings.86 Likewise, Relampagos, et al. moved that the Sandiganbayan declare lack of probable cause against them and suspend proceedings.

6.     the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution, finding probable cause against petitioners and their co-accused and, thereby, issued the corresponding warrants of arrest against them

Issue:

whether or not the findings of probable cause against all petitioners should be upheld.

Held: Yes

Time and again, this Court's consistent policy has been to maintain non-interference in the Ombudsman's determination of the existence of probable cause, provided there is no grave abuse in the exercise of such discretion. Probable cause simply means "such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that respondent is probably guilty thereof. The term does not mean 'actual and positive cause' nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief." "[T]hus, a finding based on more than bare suspicion but less than evidence that would justify a conviction would suffice.”

In determining the elements of the crime charged for purposes of arriving at a finding of probable cause, "only facts sufficient to support a prima facie case against the [accused] are required, not absolute certainty." In this case, the petitioners were charged with the crimes of Plunder and/or violations of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019. Plunder, defined and penalized under Section 2 of RA 7080, as amended, has the following elements: (a) that the offender is a public officer, who acts by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons; (b) that he amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt or criminal acts described in Section 1 (d) thereof; and (c) that the aggregate amount or total value of the ill-gotten wealth amassed, accumulated or acquired is at least Fifty Million Pesos (P50,000,000.00). On the other hand, the elements of violation of Section 3 (e)of RA 3019 are: (a) that the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial, or official functions (or a private individual acting in conspiracy with such public officers); (b) that he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence; and (c) that his action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge of his functions. In determining probable cause therefor, only a showing of the ostensible presence of these elements is required.

It should be borne in mind that probable cause is determined during the context of a preliminary investigation which is "merely an inquisitorial mode of discovering whether or not there is reasonable basis to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person charged should be held responsible for it." It "is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the prosecution's evidence." Therefore, "the validity and merits of a party's defense or accusation, as well as the admissibility of testimonies and evidence, are better ventilated during trial proper than at the preliminary investigation level." Accordingly, "owing to the initiatory nature of preliminary investigations, the technical rules of evidence should not be applied in the course of its proceedings." In this light, and as will be elaborated upon below, this Court has ruled that "probable cause can be established with hearsay evidence, as long as there is substantial basis for crediting the hearsay," and that even an invocation of the rule on res inter alios acta at this stage of the proceedings is improper.

Guided by these considerations, the Court finds that the Ombudsman did not gravely abuse its discretion in finding probable cause to indict Sen. Revilla, Cambe, Napoles, De Asis, and Lim of one (1) count of Plunder, and all the petitioners, except Lim, of sixteen (16) counts of violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019.

PROBABLE CAUSE AGAINST SEN REVILLA

Sen. Revilla faults the Ombudsman for allegedly disregarding his defense of forgery, and further contends that in the absence of other competent testimony, the Ombudsman cannot consider the whistleblowers' testimonies who purportedly were his co-conspirators in the PDAF scam, pursuant to the res inter alios acta rule.

The petition holds no water.

The finding of probable cause against Sen. Revilla is amply supported by the evidence on record. At the forefront are the PDAF documents, consisting of the written endorsements signed by Sen. Revilla himself requesting the IAs to release his PDAF funds to the identified JLN­-controlled NGOs, as well as other documents that made possible the processing of his PDAF, e.g., the MOAs executed by the legislator's office, the IA, and the chosen NGO. All these documents - even those not actually signed by Sen. Revilla - directly implicate him for the crimes charged, as they were nonetheless, all issued under the authority of his Office as Senator of the Republic of the Philippines.

Anent Sen. Revilla's claim that his signatures in the documentary evidence presented were forged, it must be emphasized that "the findings of the x x x prosecutor [on the issue of forgery] should be ventilated in a full-blown trial[.] [This] is highlighted by the reality that the authenticity of a questioned signature cannot be determined solely upon its general characteristics, or its similarities or dissimilarities with the genuine signature. The duty to determine the authenticity of a signature rests on the judge who must conduct an independent examination of the signature itself in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to its authenticity. [As such], Section 22 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court explicitly authorizes the court, by itself, to make a comparison of the disputed handwriting with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine."

Xxxx

Anent Sen. Revilla's claim that his signatures in the documentary evidence presented were forged, it must be emphasized that "the findings of the x x x prosecutor [on the issue of forgery] should be ventilated in a full-blown trial[.] [This] is highlighted by the reality that the authenticity of a questioned signature cannot be determined solely upon its general characteristics, or its similarities or dissimilarities with the genuine signature. The duty to determine the authenticity of a signature rests on the judge who must conduct an independent examination of the signature itself in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to its authenticity. [As such], Section 22 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court explicitly authorizes the court, by itself, to make a comparison of the disputed handwriting with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine."

Xxxx

Sen. Revilla opposes the admission of the whistleblowers' testimonies based on the res inter alios acta rule. However, in Reyes, citing Estrada v. Ombudsman, this Court had unanimously ruled that the testimonies of the same whistleblowers against Jo Christine and John Christopher Napoles, children of Janet Napoles who were also charged with the embezzlement of the PDAF, are admissible in evidence, considering that technical rules of evidence are not binding on the fiscal during preliminary investigation. This Court was unequivocal in declaring that the objection on res inter alios acta should falter:

Neither can the Napoles siblings discount the testimonies of the whistleblowers based on their invocation of the res inter alios acta rule under Section 28, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence, which states that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another, unless the admission is by a conspirator under the parameters of Section 30 of the same Rule. To be sure, the foregoing rule constitutes a technical rule on evidence which should not be rigidly applied in the course of preliminary investigation proceedings.

PROBABLE CAUSE AGAINST CAMBE

There is no dispute that Cambe was Sen. Revilla's trusted aide, being his Chief of Staff. By such authority, he also exercised operational control over the affairs of Sen. Revilla's office, including the allocation of his PDAF. In fact, Cambe's signatures explicitly appear on several PDAF documents, such as the MOAs allowing the IAs to transfer Sen. Revilla's PDAF funds allocated for certain projects to various JLN-controlled NGOs.¹⁶⁶

Moreover, Cambe was personally identified by the whistleblowers to have received PDAF money for himself and for Sen. Revilla

PROBABLE CAUSE AGAINST NAPOLES

Based on the evidence in support thereof such as the PDAF documents, whistleblowers' testimonies, the accounts of the IA officials, and the COA report, as well as the field verifications of the FIO, Ombudsman, this Court is convinced that there lies probable cause against Janet Napoles for the charge of Plunder as it has been prima facie established that she, in conspiracy with Sen. Revilla, Cambe, and other personalities, was significantly involved in the afore-described modus operandi to obtain Sen. Revilla's PDAF amounting to at least P50,000,000.00 in "kickbacks." In the same manner, there is probable cause against Napoles for violations of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019, as it is ostensible that their conspiracy to illegally divert PDAF Funds to "ghost" projects caused undue prejudice to the government.

That a private individual, such as Napoles, could not be charged for Plunder and violations of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 because the offenders in those crimes are public officers is a complete misconception. It has been long-settled that while the primary offender in the aforesaid crimes are public officers, private individuals may also be held liable for the same if they are found to have conspired with said officers in committing the same. This proceeds from the fundamental principle that in cases of conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.

PROBABLE CAUSE AGAINST DE ASIS
Records show that De Asis was designated as the President/Incorporator of KPMFI which was one of the many NGOs controlled by Napoles that was used in the embezzlement of Sen. Revilla's PDAF allocations. Moreover, whistleblowers Luy and Suñas explicitly n,amed De Asis as one of those who prepared money to be given to the lawmaker.

xxx

To refute the foregoing allegations, De Asis presented defenses which heavily centered on his perceived want of criminal intent, as well as the alleged absence of the elements of the crimes charged. However, such defenses are evidentiary in nature, and thus, are better ventilated during trial and not during preliminary investigation. To stress, a preliminary investigation is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the prosecution's evidence

PROBABLE CAUSE AGAINST LIM

The preparation and delivery of kickbacks to the legislator and/or his trusted staff are indeed overt acts that relate to his involvement in the PDAF scheme. To note, even if it is assumed that Lim only prepared the money and did not deliver the same as he claims, the act of preparation is still connected to the common objective of the conspiracy.

PROBABLE CAUSE AGAINST RELAMPAGOS ET. AL

whistleblower Luy positively identified Relampagos, et al. as Napoles's "contact persons" in the DBM; and (b) the COA Report found irregularities in their issuances of the aforesaid SAROs and NCAs.¹⁸² Ostensibly, these circumstances show Relampagos et al.'s manifest partiality and bad faith in favor of Napoles and her cohorts that evidently caused undue prejudice to the Government. Thus, they must stand trial for violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019.

CONCLUSION

 the Ombudsman (and the Sandiganbayan as to Relampagos, et al.) did not err in finding probable cause against all the petitioners. Their findings are fully supported by the evidence on record and no semblance of misapprehension taints the same. Moreover, this Court cannot tag key documentary evidence as forgeries and bar testimonies as hearsay at this stage of the proceedings; otherwise, it would defy established principles and norms followed during preliminary investigation. Jurisprudence teaches us that "[i]n dealing with probable cause[,] athe very name implies, we deal with probabilities. These are not technical; they are the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act. The standard of proof is accordingly correlative to what must be proved."¹⁸⁸ Overall, based on the foregoing disquisitions, the standard of probable cause was adequately hurdled by the prosecution in this case. As such, no grave abuse of discretion was committed by the Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan in the proceedings a quo. All the petitioners should therefore stand trial for the crimes they were charged.