GR 167973; (February, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 167973 ; February 28, 2007
TEOTIMO M. REDULLA, Petitioner vs. THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION), THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, and THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Teotimo M. Redulla, a Regional Technical Director of the DENR, was charged before the Sandiganbayan for violation of R.A. No. 3019 , Sec. 3(e), for allegedly conspiring to give unwarranted benefits to a private contractor by facilitating payment for a seedlings project despite alleged deficiencies. An initial Information was filed, but upon Redulla’s motion, a reinvestigation was conducted. Then Ombudsman Aniano Desierto approved a finding of no probable cause and authorized the withdrawal of the Information, which the Sandiganbayan granted in 2002.
Subsequently, in 2003, a new Ombudsman, Simeon V. Marcelo, ordered a review of the original complaints. A different prosecutor found sufficient evidence, leading to the filing of a new Information based on the same facts and transaction. Redulla filed a Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause, arguing that the prior withdrawal based on a finding of no probable cause precluded the refiling of the case. The Sandiganbayan denied his motion, prompting Redulla to file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying Redulla’s Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause and in allowing the prosecution to proceed despite a prior withdrawal of the Information based on a finding of no probable cause.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s orders. The Court held that the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on the distinct roles of the Ombudsman and the judiciary in determining probable cause. The Ombudsman has the constitutional and statutory authority to investigate and prosecute, which includes the power to reverse a prior finding and to re-file an Information if a subsequent review yields a different conclusion. The finding of no probable cause by a previous Ombudsman is not a final judgment that bars a successor from re-evaluating the evidence.
The Court emphasized that a judicial determination of probable cause is not an inquiry into the correctness of the Ombudsman’s evaluation but a check on whether such evaluation was done without arbitrariness. The act of a new Ombudsman in ordering a fresh review and arriving at a contrary conclusion, based on the evidence, falls within the scope of prosecutorial discretion and does not constitute caprice. Furthermore, the withdrawal of the first Information did not amount to an acquittal or invoke double jeopardy, as no plea had been entered. Therefore, the Sandiganbayan correctly deferred to the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause in the second instance and properly assumed jurisdiction for trial.