Read the case here.
"The Ombudsman is empowered to determine, in the exercise of his discretion, whether probable cause exists, and to charge the person believed to have committed the crime as defined by law. Whether or not the Ombudsman has correctly discharged his function, i.e., whether or not he has made a correct assessment of the evidence of probable cause in a case, is a matter that the trial court may not be compelled to pass upon."
"We agree with the Sandiganbayan’s ruling that the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure do not require cases to be set for hearing to determine probable cause for the issuance of a warrant for the arrest of the accused before any warrant may be issued."
evidence that he and the other accused involved ever met with any of the sellers. While he admits the possibility that he could have signed the bilateral deeds of sale in one sitting, he insists that these documents were
notarized separately; there is even no evidence on record that the sellers of the property transacted separately with him. He points out that the corporate officers of AFP-RSBS, especially its President, do not personally deal with any of the sellers. The bare fact that he executed the bilateral deeds of sale and that the project was approved by the higher level of the management, cannot lead to the conclusion that he took part in the implementation of the transactions.
probable cause prevails over petitioner’s bare allegations of grave abuse of discretion; that he was not involved in the step-by-step consummation of the anomalous transaction; and that as President he was involved only in the top level policy formulation and implementation.
managers of government owned or controlled corporations. Under Section 4(b) of R.A. No. 8249, the Sandiganbayan has exclusive jurisdiction over offenses committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office, whether simple or complexed with other crimes.
delitos; or involve separate crimes under the category of concurso real delito involve factual issues. Such factual issues should be resolved after trial on the merits, and not in this case. The Court is being tasked to determine whether the several sales contracts executed by petitioner and his co-accused were set afoot or triggered by a single impulse and operated by an uninterrupted force however long a time it may occupy, which, however, is a matter best left to the determination of the trial court, in this case, the Sandiganbayan.