G.R. No. 201800 - GOVERNOR MARIA GRACIA CIELO M. PADACA, V. HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES AND SANTIAGO RESPICIO.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, accused Servando Soriano and Dionisio Pine's Omnibus Motion (Re: [a] motion to recall the warrant of arrest issued against Servando Soriano and Dionsio Pine; [b] Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Probable Cause dated April 26, 2012 is hereby DENIED for utter lack of merit. [41] Undaunted, Soriano and Pine filed the present petition for certiorari (G.R. Nos. 204007-08), challenging the Resolution dated September 13, 2012 of the Sandiganbayan. They maintain that the offense of Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 can only be committed by public officers in the performance of their official duties or in relation to their public position. [42] As regards the charge for Malversation of Public Funds, they insist that they did not appropriate, misappropriate or take public funds, and that the release of the funds was legal. [43] They also assert that the conflicting decisions of the Ombudsman and of the Special Prosecutor should not be taken lightly, and that the arguments they raise are not matters of defense but the very essence of the purpose of preliminary investigation. [44] ISSUE Whether the Ombudsman and/or the Sandiganbayan committed any grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess in jurisdiction in rendering the assailed resolutions finding probable cause to charge the petitioners with Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and Malversation of Public Funds RULING OF THE COURT The Court does not, as a general rule, intrude in the Ombudsman's determination of probable cause. [45] In Dichaves vs. Office of the Ombudsman and the Special Division of the Sandiganbayan , [46] it was held: As a general rule, this Court does not interfere with the Office of the Ombudsman's exercise of its constitutional mandate. Both the Constitution and Republic Act No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989) give the Ombudsman wide latitude to act on criminal complaints against public officials and government employees. The rule on non-interference is based on the "respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman. [47] As an exception however, "the Court is not precluded from reviewing the Ombudsman's action when there is a charge of grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction." [48] "The Ombudsman's exercise of power must have been done in an arbitrary or despotic manner which must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law." [49] Otherwise, there is no basis for the Court to intervene in the Ombudsman's exercise of its investigatory and prosecutory powers. In determining the existence of probable cause, "the Ombudsman does not touch on the issue of guilt or innocence of the accused." [50] It is not the function of the Office of the Ombudsman to rule on such issue. Being m