The Supreme Court held that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing a criminal complaint against individuals accused of bribery and corruption. The Court emphasized that a preliminary investigation only requires establishing probable cause, meaning enough facts to create a reasonable belief that a crime was committed. This decision reinforces the principle that even if evidence is not conclusive, a trial is warranted when there’s a credible basis to suspect wrongdoing, ensuring public officials are held accountable for potential breaches of integrity.

Grave Doubts: Did ‘Professional Fees’ Mask Bribery and Corruption?

This case revolves around allegations against Fidel C. Cu, owner of Bicol Development Bank, Inc. (BDBI); Carmelita B. Zate, Chairman/President of BDBI; and Mary Lou S. Apelo, a former Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) employee. The Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) filed a complaint after Arsenia T. Gomez, a former BDBI employee, reported alleged irregularities. Gomez claimed Cu instructed her to deposit money into Apelo’s account, labeling it as a “professional fee.” She further alleged that Apelo provided Cu with advance warnings of surprise BSP bank examinations and that Cu would temporarily cover up any discrepancies.

The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint, citing a lack of proof that Apelo withdrew the deposited amounts and deeming Gomez’s affidavit inadmissible as hearsay. PDIC argued the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court. The central legal question is whether the Ombudsman erred in finding no probable cause to indict the respondents, given the evidence presented by the PDIC, including Gomez’s sworn affidavit and supporting documents. The resolution of this issue turns on the interpretation of what constitutes probable cause and the admissibility of evidence during preliminary investigations.

The Supreme Court reversed the Ombudsman’s decision, emphasizing the limited scope of preliminary investigations. According to the Court, these investigations aim to determine if there’s a reasonable basis to believe a crime was committed and if the accused should be held responsible. As the Court stated in Fenequito v. Vergara, Jr.:

Probable cause, for the purpose of filing a criminal information, has been defined as 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 Court further clarified that probable cause does not require absolute certainty or an inquiry into whether there’s sufficient evidence to secure a conviction. It’s enough that the acts complained of likely constitute the offense charged. This aligns with the principle that preliminary investigations are not meant to be exhaustive trials but rather a filter to prevent baseless charges from proceeding to court. The Supreme Court noted that its “consistent policy has been to maintain noninterference in the determination of the Ombudsman of the existence of probable cause, provided there is no grave abuse in the exercise of such discretion” (Ciron v. Gutierrez).

The Court then outlined the elements of the crimes charged. For Direct Bribery, the elements are: (a) the accused is a public officer; (b) they received a gift, offer, or promise; (c) the gift was given in consideration of committing a crime or an act not constituting a crime, or refraining from an official duty; and (d) the crime or act relates to their functions as a public officer. For Corruption of Public Officials, the elements are: (a) the offender makes offers or promises, or gives gifts to a public officer; and (b) the offers or gifts are given under circumstances that would make the public officer liable for bribery. Lastly, for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, the elements are: (a) the accused is a public officer; (b) they acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence; and (c) their action caused undue injury or gave unwarranted benefits.

In this case, the Court found that the sworn affidavit of Gomez, detailing the alleged scheme, along with the deposit slips showing payments to Apelo, established probable cause. The Court emphasized that Cu and Zate offered mere denials, while Apelo failed to respond to the accusations. This failure to rebut the charges contributed to the Court’s conclusion that a trial was necessary to fully investigate the allegations. The Court also addressed the Ombudsman’s dismissal of Gomez’s affidavit as hearsay.

The Court emphasized that the technical rules of evidence do not strictly apply during preliminary investigations. As the court cited in Estrada v. Ombudsman, hearsay evidence is admissible in determining probable cause in preliminary investigations because such investigation is merely preliminary, and does not finally adjudicate rights and obligations of parties.

Specifically, the court cited United States v. Ventresca, the United States Supreme Court held that hearsay may be the bases for issuance of the warrant “so long as there … [is] a substantial basis for crediting the hearsay.” The Supreme Court reasoned that Gomez, as a former high-ranking officer of BDBI, was likely privy to sensitive transactions, providing a basis for crediting her statements. This aligns with the principle that probable cause only requires a prima facie case, not absolute certainty. The merits of the defenses and the admissibility of evidence are better addressed during a full trial.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	Whether the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the criminal complaint against private respondents for lack of probable cause.
What is probable cause?	Probable cause refers to facts sufficient to create a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is likely guilty. It doesn’t require absolute certainty or proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
What crimes were the respondents charged with?	The respondents were charged with Direct Bribery, Corruption of Public Officials, and violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019).
Why did the Ombudsman dismiss the original complaint?	The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint primarily because there was no proof that Apelo withdrew the money deposited into her account and because they deemed Gomez’s affidavit as inadmissible hearsay.
Why did the Supreme Court reverse the Ombudsman’s decision?	The Supreme Court reversed the Ombudsman’s decision because it found that the Gomez affidavit and deposit slips established probable cause. The court also noted that the technical rules of evidence do not strictly apply during preliminary investigations, making hearsay admissible.
Is hearsay evidence admissible in preliminary investigations?	Yes, hearsay evidence is admissible in preliminary investigations as long as there is a substantial basis for crediting the hearsay. This is because preliminary investigations are preliminary and do not adjudicate the rights and obligations of parties.
What was the role of Arsenia Gomez in this case?	Arsenia Gomez, a former Cashier, Service Officer, and Treasurer of BDBI, provided the affidavit detailing the alleged scheme of bribery and corruption. Her testimony was critical in establishing probable cause.
What is the significance of PDIC in this case?	The Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) filed the criminal complaint in its capacity as the statutory receiver of Bicol Development Bank, Inc. (BDBI), acting on behalf of its depositors and creditors.

This case serves as a reminder of the importance of maintaining integrity in public service and the crucial role of preliminary investigations in uncovering potential wrongdoing. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores that even with less-than-conclusive evidence, a trial is necessary to ensure accountability and uphold the public trust.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION (PDIC) v. HON. ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO, G.R. No. 206866, September 02, 2015