GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. 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 - in order to exceptionally warrant judicial intervention.

"Xxx.

In closing, the Court refers to Dichaves v . Office of the Ombudsman,51 viz:

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[.]"

An independent constitutional body, the Office of the Ombudsman is "beholden to no one, acts as the champion of the people [,] and [is] the preserver of the integrity of the public service." Thus, it 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. It requires probing into 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 [or she] was prosecuted."

The Office of the Ombudsman is armed with the power to investigate. It is, therefore, in a better position to assess the strengths or weaknesses of the evidence on hand needed to make a finding of probable cause. As this Court is not a trier of facts, we defer to the sound judgment of the Ombudsman.

Practicality also leads this Court to exercise restraint in interfering with the Office of the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause. Republic v. Ombudsman Desierto explains:

[T]he functions of the courts 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 complaint.

Invoking an exception to the rule on non-interference, petitioner alleges that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion. According to him: (a) he was not given the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, (b) the Ombudsman considered pieces of evidence not presented during the preliminary investigation, and (c) there is no probable cause to charge him with plunder.

While, indeed, this Court may step in if the public prosecutor gravely abused its discretion in acting on the case, such grave abuse must be substantiated, not merely alleged. In Casing v. Hon. Ombudsman, et al.:

Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. 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 - in order to exceptionally warrant judicial intervention.

As in Dichaves,52 there is here no showing that the OMB gravely abused its discretion in finding probable cause against petitioners for violation of Section 7 of RA 3019, in relation to Section 8 of RA 6713 and for forfeiture of unlawfully acquired properties under RA 1379. The Court, therefore, adheres to the rule of judicial restraint or non-interference with the OM B's exercise of its constitutional investigative power and its consequent finding of probable cause.

Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED and the Joint Resolution dated August 12, 2016 and Joint Order dated October 2, 2017, in Case Nos. OMB-V-C-15-0115 and OMB-V-F-15-0001, AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Xxx."

G.R. Nos. 238103 & 238223, January 06, 2020 ]
FLORENCIO TUMBOCON MIRAFLORES AND MA. LOURDES MARTIN MIRAFLORES, PETITIONERS, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE, Respondents. 
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2020/jan2020/gr_238103_2020.html