"x x x.
We hold that the Office of the Ombudsman did not act with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in finding probable cause to hold petitioners for trial for alleged violation of R.A. No. 3019.
Jurisprudence has established rules on the determination of probable cause. In Galario v. Office of the Ombudsman (Mindanao),[16] the Court held:
[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 term does not mean “actual and positive cause” nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. x x x. Probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. (Italics in the original.)
In the case at bar, the Office of the Ombudsman found sufficient reason to believe that a violation of R.A. No. 3019 has been committed and that the petitioners are probably guilty thereof.
The investigation resulted in several affidavits[17] that indicate possible involvement of the petitioners in the alleged violation. Statements to the effect that the assembly, erection, mounting of beams, gantry towers and steel towers at the 230 KV switchyard of the Tuguegarao substation were done by the NPC employees themselves and not by any contractor verify and strengthen the accusations in the complaint.x x x."
