Can the Ombudsman Rule on Criminal Liability in the Preliminary Investigation?

The Ombudsman stated in its Supplemental Resolution:

“The issues to be resolved in this case may be stated as follows:

a) Should respondents BAC members be held criminally liable under Sections 3(e) and (g) of RA 3019, for having declared MPC eligible and for allowing it to participate in the bid. Corollary thereto, will the same acts give rise to administrative liability for Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service?

b) Should respondents COMELEC Commissioners be held liable for violation under section 3(e) of RA 3019, when it passed Resolution No. 6074 awarding Phase II contract to MPC, an entity which allegedly did not take part in the bidding and for executing the contract with MPeI an entity which the Supreme Court found to be ineligible?

c) Is the Phase II Contract between COMELEC and MPeI grossly disadvantageous to the government for which reason public and private respondents may be held accountable under Section 3(g) of RA 3019?

d) Finally, should private respondents be held liable for violating Sections 3(e) and (g) of RA 3019 being the beneficiaries of the nullified Resolution and Contract for Phase II?”


Again, this is a manifest error on the part of the Office of the Ombudsman to be ruling on these issues when what was called for was a mere determination of probable cause.

As clarified by the Supreme Court, the task of the Office of the Ombudsman is to determine the existence of probable cause that will warrant the filing of an information. This information shall be filed with the proper judicial body, in this case the Sandiganbayan, which is the one tasked to determine the criminal liability of the accused.

The proper questions that should be answered by the Office of the Ombudsman must be:

a) Is there probable cause that the BAC members violated Sections 3(e) and (g) of RA 3019, for having declared MPC eligible and for allowing it to participate in the bid?
b) Is there probable cause that respondents COMELEC Commissioners violated Sec 3 (e) of RA 3019 in awarding the contract to MPC?
c) Is there probable cause that Chairman Benjamin Abalos, Sr. violated Sec 3(e) of RA 3019 in entering into a contract with Mega Pacific eSolutions, Inc.?
d) Is there probable cause that private respondents have committed any offense under the Revised Penal Code or any other penal statute?

If the Office of the Ombudsman will rule on the issues it stated in the Supplemental Resolution, then it is arrogating upon itself the power and duty lodged with the Sandiganbayan. Clearly, ruling on the criminal liability of the public and private respondents is beyond the powers granted to the Office of the Ombudsman.