PCGG vs Desierto

GR no. 132120
February 10, 2003

Facts:
 This case is a petition for certiorari seeking to reverse the Resolution and
Order of then Ombudsman Aniano Desierto who exonerated Hermino T
Disini for the crimes of corruption of public officials in relation to Bribery
and violation of the Anti Graft Law.
 The assailed resolution dismissed the charges against Disini for “lack of
prima facie evidence” while the assailed Order denied the petitioners
Motion for Reconsideration.
 The PCGG charged Disini for bribing the late President Ferdinand E.
Marcos as means to induce him to assist and favor individuals and
corporate entities namely the Westinghouse and Burns & Joe
corporations.
 The charge pertained to the “negotiation, award, signing, amendment and
implementation of the main and related “contracts” for the Philippine
Nuclear Power Plant project of the National Power Corporation, as a result
the aforementioned public official “accumulated and benefited” from
unlawful acquisition of income and profits.

Issue:
1. Whether or not the PCGG submitted sufficient evidence for probable
cause that crime has been committed by Disini
2. Whether or not the Ombudsman gravely abused his discretion in
dismissing the charges to Disini by the PCGG
3. Whether or not there is an effect on the Principal of the Dismissal of
Charges against Accomplices and Accessories

Ruling:
1. Yes. The PCGG presented sufficient evidence to establish probable cause
to show that Disini had capitalized, exploited and taken advantage of his
close personal relation with the former President.
2. Yes. It is clear that the ombudsman gravely abused his discretion in
disregarding the evidence on record, as well as some settled principles
and rulings laid down by this court.
3. No. While the dismissal of a charge against a Principal (Disini) would carry
the charges against the accomplices and accessories (Westinghouse and
Burns & Joe), the discharge of the latter would not benefit the former. The
responsibility of an accessory or an accomplice is “subordinate” to that of
the Principal. Indeed an accessory or an accomplice is like a shadow that
follows the principal, not the other way around.

In sum, the Petition is GRANTED. The Resolution and the ORDER are
SET ASIDE and the Ombudsman is DIRECTED to file in the proper court
the appropriate criminal charges against Disini and to Westinghouse and
Burns & Joe if there’s any. No costs