FACTS:

This case involves Jose Miguel T. Arroyo who filed a Petition for Certiorari assailing the Resolutions issued by the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-0164. The Resolutions affirmed the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause for filing charges against Arroyo for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, also known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

The Office of the Ombudsman designated a Panel of Investigators to investigate anomalies in the purchase of Light Operational Police Helicopters by the Philippine National Police in 2009. In a Complaint filed by the Office of the Ombudsman through its Field Investigation Office, Arroyo, his brother Ignacio "Iggy" Arroyo, Hilario De Vera, and other officials of the Philippine National Police were charged with violation of several administrative and penal laws.

It was alleged that the Philippine National Police purchased helicopters from Manila Aerospace Products Trading Corporation. However, it was discovered that only one helicopter was brand new, while the other two were pre-owned by Arroyo. This allegedly caused undue injury to the government and gave unwarranted benefits to certain individuals. A Special Investigating Panel recommended the filing of criminal and administrative cases against Arroyo and his co-accused, leading to the filing of an Information charging Arroyo with violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019. Arroyo filed a Motion for Reconsideration, claiming that he was not the owner of the helicopters and had already divested himself of shares in the alleged corporation that benefitted from the sale. However, the Ombudsman denied the motion. Arroyo voluntarily surrendered and posted bail to secure his provisional liberty.

The petitioner, Michael Ray Aquino Arroyo, filed a Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause before the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division, praying for the dismissal of the criminal case against him on the ground of lack of probable cause. He argued that there was no evidence supporting the conclusion that he owned the two helicopters involved in the case and that the evidence actually showed that it was Archibald Po and his companies who owned the helicopters. He also contended that there was no evidence linking him to the purchase of the helicopters, no proof of conspiracy, and no valid basis for the denial of his Motion for Reconsideration. The Sandiganbayan denied Arroyo's motion, finding that there was probable cause that Arroyo participated in the transaction. Arroyo filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was also denied. He then filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition before the Supreme Court, arguing that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in disregarding the lack of evidence that he owned the helicopters. He claimed that the helicopters belonged to Po's companies, not him or his family corporation. Arroyo also argued that the Ombudsman failed to distinguish him from Arroyo, Inc., and that he had divested himself of any interest in the corporation before the purchase of the helicopters.

The petitioner in this case questions the alleged trust relationship between him and Po, which supposedly made him the beneficial owner of the helicopters in question. He argues that he is neither the legal nor the beneficial owner of the helicopters sold to the Philippine National Police. He also questions the allegation of conspiracy, asserting that there is no substantial proof that he instructed certain persons, exerted influence over certain Philippine National Police personnel, or performed acts that can be characterized as part of the scheme.

The respondent maintains that there was nothing irregular in the proceedings before the Office of the Ombudsman and asserts that its finding of probable cause against the petitioner is supported by evidence presented during the preliminary investigation. They argue that the petitioner still had an interest in Arroyo, Inc. at the time of the transaction and that the documents cited by the petitioner do not conclusively establish the true ownership of the helicopters. Furthermore, they present ledgers and testimonies showing financial transactions between the petitioner and LIONAIR.

The main issue in this case is whether or not the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner's motion and affirming the finding of probable cause.

The petitioner in this case filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, questioning the denial of his motion for reconsideration by the Ombudsman. The petitioner had been indicted for alleged violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. The petitioner argued that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in denying his motion and affirming the finding of probable cause to indict him. The main issue was whether or not the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause against the petitioner.

ISSUES:

1. The sole issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's motion and affirming the finding of probable cause to indict him. Subsumed under this issue is whether or not the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause against petitioner.

2. Whether the determination of probable cause during preliminary investigation is an executive or judicial function.

3. Whether the courts can review the exercise of discretion by the public prosecutor in filing an information or dismissing a complaint.

4. Whether a motion for judicial determination of probable cause is necessary.

5. Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause.

6. Whether the Sandiganbayan misappreciated evident facts in its determination of probable cause.

7. Whether the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause against the petitioner is tainted with grave abuse of discretion.

8. Whether the evidence used during the preliminary investigation is sufficient to establish probable cause.

9. Whether there is grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Sandiganbayan and the Ombudsman in finding probable cause against the petitioner.

10. Whether the findings of the Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan are supported by evidence.

RULING:

1. The Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause does not rule on the issue of guilt or innocence of the accused. The Ombudsman is mandated to only evaluate the evidence presented by the prosecution and the accused and determine if there is enough reason to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty of committing the crime. The Court also stated that the Office of the Ombudsman is endowed with a wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutory prerogatives and as a general rule, the Court does not interfere with its exercise of its constitutional mandate. The Court deferred to the sound judgment of the Ombudsman and emphasized the need for practicality in not interfering with the Ombudsman's determination of probable cause.

2. The determination of probable cause during preliminary investigation is an executive function that belongs to the public prosecutor. It is within the prosecutor's quasi-judicial authority to determine whether a criminal case should be filed in court.

3. The courts cannot review the exercise of discretion by the public prosecutor in filing an information or dismissing a complaint. Once an information is filed in court, any disposition of the case, such as dismissal or conviction, rests in the sound discretion of the court.

4. A motion for judicial determination of probable cause is not necessary because the judge is already duty-bound to personally evaluate the resolution of the public prosecutor and the supporting evidence to determine the existence of probable cause for the arrest of the accused.

5. The Court held that the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause. Mere disagreement with the Ombudsman's findings is not enough to constitute grave abuse of discretion. Petitioner must show that the preliminary investigation was conducted in such a way that amounted to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by law. In this case, the Sandiganbayan's findings and conclusions were based on evidence and there was nothing capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary in their determination of probable cause.

6. The Court found that the Sandiganbayan did not misappreciate evident facts in its determination of probable cause. The Sandiganbayan thoroughly discussed the documents presented and the evidence gathered, which were sufficient to establish a reasonable belief that petitioner is involved in the transaction.

7. No, there is no showing that the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause was arbitrary, capricious, or whimsical. The evaluation is supported by evidence. To justify the issuance of a writ of certiorari on the ground of abuse of discretion, the abuse must be grave and equivalent to acting without jurisdiction. In this case, the Ombudsman's determination of probable cause is within its duty and not tainted with grave abuse of discretion.

8. Yes, the evidence used during the preliminary investigation is sufficient to establish probable cause. At the preliminary investigation stage, the Ombudsman determines probable cause by weighing facts and circumstances and relying on common sense, without resorting to technical rules of evidence. A finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry as to whether there is sufficient evidence to secure a conviction. Probable cause implies probability of guilt and is based on opinion and reasonable belief. The conduct of a preliminary investigation is geared only to determine whether or not there is probable cause to hold the accused for trial.

9. The Court finds that there is no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Sandiganbayan and the Ombudsman in finding probable cause against the petitioner. The arguments raised by the petitioner are evidentiary in nature and should be properly addressed during a full trial on the merits.

10. The Court affirms that the findings of the Ombudsman, as affirmed by the Sandiganbayan, are supported by evidence. The records of the case show that the findings are not tainted with malice or mere speculations and surmises. Disagreement with the appreciation of the evidence by the Ombudsman does not amount to jurisdictional error.

PRINCIPLES:

• Probable cause is defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted.

• A finding 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. A finding of probable cause merely binds over the suspect to stand trial. It is not a pronouncement of guilt.

• The Office of the Ombudsman is endowed with a wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutory prerogatives. The Court does not interfere with its exercise of its constitutional mandate, unless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion.

• The Ombudsman has the sole power to determine whether there is probable cause to warrant the filing of a criminal case against an accused. This function is executive in nature.

• The executive determination of probable cause is a highly factual matter. The Office of the Ombudsman, armed with the power to investigate, is in a better position to assess the strengths or weaknesses of the evidence on hand needed to make a finding of probable cause. The Court defers to the sound judgment of the Ombudsman.

• Jurisprudence consistently rules in favor of non-interference in the Ombudsman's determination of the existence of probable cause unless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion. This policy is based on respect for the Ombudsman's mandate and on practicality.

• The executive determination of probable cause during preliminary investigation is different from the judicial determination of probable cause for issuing a warrant of arrest.

• The determination of probable cause for filing an information is within the exclusive sphere and competence of the Ombudsman or public prosecutor.

• Once an information is filed with the court, the court acquires jurisdiction and has the discretion to determine the fate of the case.

• Motions for judicial determination of probable cause are superfluities because the judge is already required to make a personal finding of probable cause based on the prosecutor's resolution and supporting evidence.

• The judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and witnesses, but must personally evaluate the prosecutor's report and supporting documents.

• Mere disagreement with the Ombudsman's findings is not enough to constitute grave abuse of discretion.

• The preliminary investigation must be conducted in a manner that does not amount to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by law.

• The determination of probable cause must be based on evidence and must not be capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary.

• In determining probable cause, the court may rely on evidence showing a reasonable belief of the accused's involvement in the crime.

• The court may consider evidence such as ownership of assets, control over transactions, and other indicia of ownership in establishing probable cause.

• Abuse of discretion exists when a power is exercised in an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility so gross as to amount to evasion of positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.

• Probable cause in a preliminary investigation is determined by weighing facts and circumstances and relying on common sense, without resorting to technical rules of evidence.

• A preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial and preparatory to a trial. An accused's right to a preliminary investigation is statutory, not a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

• Probable cause is determined in a summary manner, and a full assessment of the case is done during trial. The quantum of evidence required in a preliminary investigation is such evidence sufficient to engender a well-founded belief as to the fact of the commission of a crime and the accused's probable guilt thereof.

• The Court will not interfere with the findings of probable cause by the Sandiganbayan and the Ombudsman unless there is grave abuse of discretion.

• The Court will respect the findings of the Sandiganbayan and the Ombudsman if they are supported by evidence and are not tainted with malice or mere conjectures.