G.R. Nos. 234868-69. July 27, 2022.
MARIO L. RELAMPAGOS, PETITIONER, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

The case originated from the Malampaya Fund controversy, involving the alleged anomalous release of P900 million to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) for post-typhoon assistance. The Ombudsman found probable cause to indict several individuals, including petitioner Mario L. Relampagos, then an Undersecretary of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM). The charges stemmed from the fund’s subsequent diversion to non-existent NGOs linked to Janet Lim Napoles. The Ombudsman’s Joint Resolution initially found probable cause for Plunder and multiple counts of Malversation and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. A subsequent Joint Order modified this by dismissing the Plunder case but upheld the finding of probable cause for 97 counts of Malversation through Falsification of Public Documents and 97 counts of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 against Relampagos and others.
Relampagos’s alleged participation centered on his actions as a DBM Undersecretary. Despite a memorandum from a subordinate director flagging deficiencies in the DAR’s fund request—specifically the lack of a required Rehabilitation Plan and a Philippine Agrarian Reform Council Resolution—Relampagos, on behalf of the DBM Secretary, issued the corresponding Notice of Cash Allocation (NCA) for the P900 million. The Ombudsman concluded that by proceeding with the release despite the noted irregularities, Relampagos, along with other officials, facilitated the illegal disbursement, making him liable as a co-conspirator in the malversation scheme.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause to indict petitioner Mario L. Relampagos for Malversation of Public Funds through Falsification and violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 .

RULING

No, the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court dismissed Relampagos’s petition and affirmed the Ombudsman’s findings. The Court emphasized that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 assailing the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause is limited to reviewing whether the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court does not evaluate the evidence to determine probable cause de novo; that function rests squarely with the Ombudsman, whose discretion in such matters is generally respected.
The legal logic is anchored on the distinction between an error of judgment and an error of jurisdiction. The Court found that Relampagos failed to demonstrate that the Ombudsman’s determination was bereft of any factual or legal basis. The Ombudsman’s conclusion was based on evidence showing Relampagos, despite being informed of the lacking supporting documents for the fund release, proceeded to issue the NCA. This act, viewed in the context of the overall scheme where the funds were ultimately diverted to fake NGOs, provided sufficient ground for a well-founded belief that a crime had been committed and that Relampagos was probably guilty thereof. His argument that he merely acted on the orders of his superior did not absolve him, as the alleged conspiracy involved a chain of actions by multiple public officers. Therefore, the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause was not arrived at arbitrarily or capriciously, and thus, no grave abuse of discretion attended its ruling.