G.R. No. 125498 - CONRADO B. RODRIGO, JR., ALEJANDRO A. FACUNDO AND REYNALDO G. MEJICA, VS. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION), OMBUDSMAN AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, we hold that the Ombudsman did not err in entertaining the complaint filed by the Provincial Auditor against petitioners, nor the Sandiganbayan in allowing trial to proceed, despite the pendency of petitioners' motions before the auditor. II Petitioners argue that their opposition to the disallowance, supported as it is by a certificate of acceptance and completion, would betray the absence of the elements of evident bad faith or negligence, and damage. They likewise claim that the evidence does not establish conspiracy among them. The presence or absence of the elements of the crime, however, is evidentiary in nature and is a matter of defense, the truth of which can be best passed upon after a full-blown trial on the merits. [15] The same applies to the alleged absence of any conspiracy between the accused. This Court, moreover, has maintained a consistent policy of non-interference in the determination of the Ombudsman regarding the existence of probable cause, provided there is no grave abuse in the exercise of such discretion. [16] In a recent decision, [17] this Court, quoting Young vs. Office of the Ombudsman , [18] stated the rationale for this rule: ... The rule is based not only upon respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman but upon practicality as well. Otherwise, the functions of the court will be grievously hampered by innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of investigatory proceedings conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman with regard to complaints filed before it, in much the same way that the courts would be extremely swamped if they could be compelled to review the exercise of discretion on the part of the fiscals or prosecuting attorneys each time they decide to file an information in court or dismiss a complaint by a private complainant. Petitioners have failed to establish any such abuse on the part of the Ombudsman. III Petitioners next question the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan . They contend that Mayor Rodrigo occupies a position of Grade 24 and is, therefore, beyond the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan . Before the passage of Republic Act No. 7975 [19] on 30 March 1995, the pertinent portions of section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1606, [20] as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1861, [21] read as follows: SEC. 4. Jurisdiction. - The Sandiganbayan shall exercise: (a) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving: (1) Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code; (2) Other offenses or felonies committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office, including those employed in government-owned or controlled corporations, whether simple or complexed with other crimes, where the penalty prescribed by law is higher than prision correcc