EN BANC
[G.R. Nos. 215795-96. September 13, 2016.]
ANTONIO Y. ORTIZ, petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
[G.R. Nos. 215857-71. September 13, 2016.]
MARIO L. RELAMPAGOS, ROSARIO SALAMIDA NUÑEZ, LALAINE NARAG PAULE, AND MARILOU DIALINO BARE, petitioners, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated SEPTEMBER 13, 2016, which reads as follows:
"G.R. Nos. 215795-96 [Antonio Y. Ortiz v. Sandiganbayan (Third Division) and People of the Philippines] and G.R. Nos. 215857-71 [Mario L. Relampagos, Rosario Salamida Nuñez, Lalaine Narag Paule, and Marilou Dialino Bare v. Sandiganbayan (Third Division) and People of the Philippines] — These consolidated Petitions for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeks the nullification of the September 2, 2014 1 and November 14, 2014 2 Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan in Crim. Cases Nos. SB14CRM-0241 to 0255, which denied the Amended Motion to Quash of petitioner Antonio Y. Ortiz (Ortiz) and the Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration of petitioners Mario L. Relampagos, Rosario Salamida Nuñez, Lalaine Narag Paule, and Marilou Dialino Bare (Relampagos, et al.).
The present cases are offshoots of the several cases for violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 filed against Senator Juan Ponce Enrile (Senator Enrile).
Separate Informations for violation of R.A. No. 3019 were filed before the Sandiganbayan against Enrile, et al. The following persons were indicted with Enrile: Relampagos as Undersecretary for Operations of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM); his staff, namely: Nuñez, Paule and Bare; and Ortiz as former Director General of the Technology Resource Center (TRC).
The Informations indicting Ortiz accused him, together with other TRC officers, of conspiring with one another and with private individuals in criminally causing undue injury to the government and giving unwarranted benefits to the said private individuals, while in the performance of their official functions. On the other hand, the Informations indicting Relampagos, et al. accused them of having facilitated, with undue haste, the processing of the subject Sub-Allotment Release Orders (Sub-ARO) and Notice of Cash Allocations (NCA).
On June 30, 2014, Ortiz filed a Motion to Quash. He, however, filed a Motion to Withdraw Motion to Quash 3 and an Amended Motion to Quash and Recall Warrant of Arrest 4(amended motion) on July 8, 2014.
Ortiz assailed the validity of the Informations arguing that the captions and preambles thereof erroneously included him as one of the accused. He bewailed that the recital of facts in the criminal cases expressly and explicitly excluded him as one of the accused and that the existence of probable cause against him was never judicially determined as no hearing was conducted to that effect by the Sandiganbayan. Lastly, Ortiz assailed that the two Informations were vague and ambiguous as they failed to sufficiently state the date the crimes were allegedly committed and the nature of the "kickbacks" he allegedly received.
Meanwhile, on July 7, 2014, Relampagos, et al. filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration with Motions to Recall Warrants of Arrest and to Defer Arraignment 5(Omnibus Motion). They sought the reconsideration of the July 3, 2014 Resolution of the Sandiganbayan which held that there existed probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest against them. Relampagos, et al. argued that there was no probable cause to indict them, or for the issuance of warrants of arrest, considering that no specific over-act was ever alleged in the NBI complaints. They claimed that their respective participations were isolated because their acts formed part of their ordinary duties and that no act linking them to the alleged conspiracy was shown. In addition, Relampagos explained that he signed four (4) of the subject nine (9) Special Allotment Release Orders (SARO) as part of his ministerial duty or as a substitute signatory only. aDSIHc
On July 9, 2014, and before the date set for the arraignment of Relampagos, et al., the prosecution filed a Manifestation with Motion to Admit Amended Informations 6(Motion to Admit). It moved for the inclusion of the name "Ortiz" in the recital of facts of the Informations expressly accusing him of having caused the preparation and execution of the Memoranda of Agreement governing the implementation of the projects and, thereafter, having facilitated, processed, and approved the disbursement of the subject Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) to their co-accused private individuals, without conducting due diligence audit. The prosecution also sought to change the prefix "Sub" in Sub-ARO with "Special" so that it would read as "Special Allotment Release Order."
The petitioners opposed the said amendments. Ortiz argued, among others, that the proposed amendments pertain to substantial matters which could not be made without reinvestigation. He further reiterated his position that the recital of facts in the original Informations constituted no criminal offense. For their part, Relampagos, et al. claimed that the subject Informations should be dismissed for being void as they lacked the requisite preliminary investigation.
The Sandiganbayan Ruling
In its September 2, 2014 Resolution, the Sandiganbayan granted the prosecution's Motion to Admit and denied Relampagos, et al.'s Omnibus Motion and Ortiz's Amended Motion.
In admitting the amended Informations, the court a quo reasoned that the amendment of the Information, whether as to form or substance, is a matter of right on the part of the prosecution before arraignment, pursuant to Section 14, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. It further ruled that in any case, the amendments introduced by the prosecution were merely formal amendments. Citing Buhat vs. Court of Appeals, 7 the Sandiganbayan opined that the inclusion of Ortiz, among others, in the recitals of the Informations would definitely not change the nature of crime alleged or the alleged participation of the co-conspirators considering that the original Informations already named Ortiz as among those government officials who conspired with Senator Enrile, et al.
The Sandiganbayan also ruled that the amendment of Sub-ARO to SARO was also a mere formal amendment. It observed that the pleadings and documents filed during the preliminary investigation, all referred to SAROs and never to Sub-AROs. The anti-graft court concluded that the amendments were mere formal amendments because they were made simply to conform with the records of the preliminary investigation.
As to Relampagos, et al.'s Omnibus Motion, the Sandiganbayan reiterated its position that there exists probable cause for the issuance of the warrants of arrest against them. It posited that their arguments were matters of defense which could be best ventilated or threshed out during the trial.
Lastly, with respect to Ortiz's amended motion, the Sandiganbayan posited that the subject Informations sufficiently alleged the essential elements under Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019. It reasoned that there was no need to specifically allege the date of the commission of the subject crime, it not being an essential element thereof; and that the nature of the kickbacks and the circumstances surrounding the acceptance thereof were all evidentiary matters which need not be alleged in criminal Informations.
On September 5, 2014, Relampagos, et al. filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration with Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause. They reiterated their position that the amendments introduced by the prosecution were substantial; and that there was still no probable cause against them under the amended Informations.
On September 19, 2014, Ortiz filed a Motion for Reconsideration. He asserted that the Amended Informations were vague and ambiguous; and that there was no probable cause against him.
In its November 14, 2014 Resolution, the Sandiganbayan denied the respective motions of the petitioners. It found the issues and arguments raised by the petitioners in their respective motions to be mere rehash of their arguments in their earlier motions and pleadings. The anti-graft court echoed that the issue on the existence of probable cause against the petitioners was already settled in its earlier resolution.
Hence, these consolidated petitions raising the
SOLE ISSUE
WHETHER THE SANDIGANBAYAN COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN FINDING PROBABLE CAUSE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS UNDER THE AMENDED INFORMATIONS.
Relampagos, et al. argue that they had limited participation in the release of the SAROs and, therefore, could not have possibly effected the alleged undue hasty release thereof; that the Informations did not constitute any offense against them; that there was no evidence on record which would support the conclusion that there was undue haste in the release of the subject SAROs and NCAs; and that there was no evidence on record which would show the character of the alleged kickback, and the circumstances surrounding the alleged receipt thereof.
In addition, Relampagos, et al. assail the Sandiganbayan's entry of the plea of "not guilty" for them on November 19, 2014. They contend that the court a quo prematurely entered said plea for them considering that they had still other remedies in the course of law to assail the denial of their Motion to Quash. ETHIDa
For his part, Ortiz argues that the Amended Informations are vague and ambiguous and do not constitute any offense; that the existence of probable cause against him was never judicially determined; and that he was denied of his right to due process because the insufficiency of the allegations in the Informations would give him the wrong impression about the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
In its Comment 8 to Relampagos, et al., dated May 5, 2015, the prosecution disputes that petitioners miserably failed to demonstrate that the court a quo exercised its judgment in an arbitrary and despotic manner or that the exercise of such judgment was outside the bounds of its jurisdiction; that the probability of their criminal liability was based on testimonial evidence; that the recital of facts under the Amended Informations clearly and sufficiently charged petitioners with violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019; and that the court a quo's entry of pleas of "not guilty" after Relampagos, et al.'s refusal to enter their pleas was in accord with the law.
Similarly, in its Comment 9 to Ortiz's petition, dated May 7, 2015, the prosecution contends that an original action for certiorari is not the proper remedy from the denial of a motion to quash; that the allegations in the Informations were sufficient in form and substance; and that Ortiz raised arguments which were irrelevant to the issue of the case.
In his Reply, 10 dated August 20, 2015, Ortiz insists that the vagueness and ambiguity of the Informations were not cured by the mere insertion of his name; and that the term "kickbacks" was not merely evidentiary in nature. For their part, in their Consolidated Reply, 11 dated September 26, 2015, Relampagos, et al. merely reiterated their arguments in their petition.
The Court's Ruling
The petitions are bereft of merit.
The Sandiganbayan did not err in finding probable cause for violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 against herein petitioners.
In a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the petitioner has the burden to establish that the respondent tribunal acted without jurisdiction, as where it acted without or in excess of jurisdiction; that having been clothed with power to determine the case, it oversteps its authority as determined by law, or that it committed grave abuse of its discretion or acted in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner in the exercise of its jurisdiction as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. 12 This is so because "grave abuse of discretion" is well-defined and not an amorphous concept that may easily be manipulated to suit one's purpose. 13
While the petitioners impute grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Sandiganbayan, they failed to state specific allegations which would show or even suggest a capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary exercise of judgment or to demonstrate that the Sandiganbayan exercised its discretion beyond the bounds of its jurisdiction. On the contrary, the Court finds that the assailed resolutions are consistent with the applicable laws, rules and jurisprudence.
To begin with, the Sandiganbayan acted correctly in denying petitioners' motions for judicial determination of probable cause. In Leviste vs. Alameda, the Court held that:
To move the court to conduct a judicial determination of probable cause is a mere superfluity for, with or without such motion, the judge is duty-bound to personally evaluate the resolution of the public prosecutor and the supporting evidence. In fact, the task of the presiding judge when the Information is filed with the court is first and foremost to determine the existence or non-existence of probable cause for the arrest of the accused. [Emphases supplied]
Furthermore, the Court concurs with the Sandiganbayan's observation that the subject Amended Informations adequately charged petitioners with violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019.
Jurisprudence dictates that the test to determine the sufficiency of the allegations in an Information is whether the crime is described in intelligible terms with such particularity as to apprise the accused, with reasonable certainty, of the offense charged. 14
Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 has the following essential elements: (a) the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions; (b) he must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or excusable negligence; and (c) 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. 15
In this case, Relampagos, et al. were charged as officers of the DBM; while Ortiz was charged as Director General of TRC. The Amended Informations also state that the petitioners, while in the performance of their official functions, conspired with each other and private individuals, acting with evident bad faith and manifest partiality. The Amended Informations further alleged that they caused damage and injury to the government and gave unwarranted benefits and advantage to their co-accused private individuals. Evidently, the crime of violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 was sufficiently described in intelligible terms and the petitioners were apprised, with reasonable certainty, of the offense charged. cSEDTC
The Court likewise finds the other arguments without merit. These arguments essentially delve on evidentiary matters which are best passed upon in a full-blown trial. The determination of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed and there is enough reason to believe that it was committed by the accused. It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt. 16 The validity and the merits of a party's defense or accusation, as well as the admissibility of testimonies and evidence, are better ventilated during trial proper. 17
Lastly, Relampagos, et al. err in insisting that the court a quo prematurely entered pleas of not guilty for them. Section 1, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court unequivocally provides that when the accused refuses to plead or makes a conditional plea, a plea of not guilty shall be entered for him.
WHEREFORE, the consolidated petitions are DISMISSED. The September 2, 2014 and November 14, 2014 Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan in Crim. Case Nos. SB14CRM-0241 to 0255 are AFFIRMED in toto." Bersamin, J., on official leave. Jardeleza, J., no part. (adv38)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) FELIPA B. ANAMAClerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Presiding Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang with Associate Justice Samuel R. Martires and Associate Justice Alex L. Quiroz, concurring; rollo, pp. 78-150.
2. Id. at 157-168.
3. Id. at 177-178.
4. Id. at 179-205.
5. Id. at 429-472.
6. Id. at 206-214.
7. 333 Phil. 562 (1996).
8. Rollo, pp. 845-873.
9. Id. at 273-289.
10. Id. at 877-881.
11. Id. at 897-918.
12. Abedes v. Court of Appeals, 562 Phil. 262 (2007).
13. Malayang Manggagawa ng Stayfast Phils., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 716 Phil. 500 (2013).
14. Miranda v. Sandiganbayan, 502 Phil. 423 (2005).
15. Consigna v. People, G.R. No. 175750-51, April 2, 2014, 720 SCRA 350.
16. Unilever Philippines, Inc. v. Tan, 725 Phil. 486 (2014).
17. Ricaforte v. Jurado, 559 Phil. 97 (2007).