JUSTICE MARTIN VILLARAMA, JR.: OMBUDSMAN’S FINDING OF PROBABLE CAUSE

In Galario v. Office of the Ombudsman (Mindanao), G.R. No. 166797, July 10, 2007, the Supreme 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.”  

It is worth stressing that the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause does not touch on the issue of guilt or innocence of the accused.  It is not the function of the Office of the Ombudsman to rule on such issue.  All that the Office of the Ombudsman did was to weigh the evidence presented together with the counter-allegations of the accused and determine if there was enough reason to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused are probably guilty thereof. In this light, the Supreme Court found no compelling reason to disturb the findings of the Office of the Ombudsman (MARCELO G. GANADEN ET AL. VS. HON. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND ROBERT K. HUMIWAT, G.R. NOS. 169359-61, JUNE 1, 2011, VILLARAMA, JR., J.).