1/28/2015

TetangcovsOmbudsman:156427:January20,2006:J.Quisumbing:ThirdDivision:Decision

THIRDDIVISION

AMANDOTETANGCO,
G.R.No.156427
Petitioner,

Present:

Quisumbing,J.,
versus
(Chairman),
Carpio,
CarpioMorales,and
Tinga,JJ.

THE HON. OMBUDSMAN and Promulgated:

MAYORJOSEL.ATIENZA,JR.,

Respondents.
January20,2006
xx

DECISION

QUISUMBING,J.:

This petition for certiorari seeks to annul and set aside the Order,

[1]
dated April

16,2002,ofpublicrespondentOmbudsmaninOMBCC020151Cwhichdismissedthe
Complaint of petitioner Amando Tetangco against private respondent Mayor Jose L.
[2]
of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Also

Atienza, Jr., for violation of Article 220

[3]
assailedistheOrder, datedAugust1,2002,denyingthemotionforreconsideration.
OnMarch8,2002,petitionerfiledhisComplaintbeforetheOmbudsmanalleging
that on January 26, 2001, private respondent Mayor Atienza gave P3,000 cash financial
assistancetothechairmanandP1,000toeachtanodofBarangay105,Zone8,DistrictI.
Allegedly,onMarch5,2001,MayorAtienzarefundedP20,000orthetotalamountofthe
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/156427.htm

1/7

1/28/2015

TetangcovsOmbudsman:156427:January20,2006:J.Quisumbing:ThirdDivision:Decision

financialassistancefromtheCityofManilawhensuchdisbursementwasnotjustifiedasa
lawfulexpense.
In his CounterAffidavit, Mayor Atienza denied the allegations and sought the
dismissal of the Complaint for lack of jurisdiction and for forumshopping. He asserted
that it was the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), not the Ombudsman that has
jurisdiction over the case and the same case had previously been filed before the
COMELEC.Furthermore,theComplainthadnoverificationandcertificateofnonforum
shopping. The mayor maintained that the expenses were legal and justified, the same
being supported by disbursement vouchers, and these had passed prior audit and
accounting.
TheInvestigatingOfficerrecommendedthedismissaloftheComplaintforlackof
evidenceandmerit.TheOmbudsmanadoptedhisrecommendation.
TheOfficeoftheOmbudsman,throughitsOverallDeputyOmbudsman,likewise
deniedpetitionersmotionforreconsideration.
Beforeus,petitionerassignsforresolutionasingleissue:
WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT OMBUDSMAN COMMITTED
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT DISMISSED THE CRIMINAL
CHARGEAGAINSTRESPONDENTMAYORATIENZAFORVIOLATIONOFART.
220 OF THE RPC DESPITE THE EXISTENCE OF A PRIMA FACIE CASE AND
PROBABLE CAUSE TO INDICT HIM FOR THE CRIME CHARGED OR, AT THE
VERY LEAST, FOR VIOLATION OF SEC. 3(e) OF R.A. NO. 3019 (ANTIGRAFT
ANDCORRUPTPRACTICESACT).

[4]

The sole issue is, did the Ombudsman commit grave abuse of discretion in
dismissingtheComplaint?

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/156427.htm

2/7

1/28/2015

TetangcovsOmbudsman:156427:January20,2006:J.Quisumbing:ThirdDivision:Decision

PetitionerinsiststhatMayorAtienzaillegallydisbursedpublicfundswhenhegave
theaforementionedfinancialassistancetothechairmanandtanodsofBarangay105since
thedisbursementwasnotauthorizedbylaworordinance,whichtheOmbudsmandidnot
consider when it dismissed the Complaint of petitioner. According to petitioner, the
dismissalbytheOmbudsmanwascapricioussincetheevidenceonrecordwasclearthat
[5]
themayorwasguiltyofgraftandcorruption.
TheOmbudsman,throughtheSolicitorGeneral,contendsthatitdidnotabuseits
discretionandtherewasalsonoprobablecauseagainstprivaterespondentforviolationof
[6]

Art.220oftheRPC.

Forhispart,MayorAtienzaaversthattherewasnograveabuseofdiscretiononthe
partoftheOmbudsmanwhenitdismissedtheComplaint.

[7]

After considering the submissions of the parties, we find that the petition lacks
merit.NograveabuseofdiscretionisattributabletotheOmbudsman.
ItiswellsettledthattheCourtwillnotordinarilyinterferewiththeOmbudsmans
determinationofwhetherornotprobablecauseexistsexceptwhenitcommitsgraveabuse
[8]
of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion exists where a power is exercised in an
arbitrary, capricious, whimsical or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal
hostilitysopatentandgrossastoamounttoevasionofpositivedutyorvirtualrefusalto
perform a duty enjoined by, or in contemplation of law.

[9]
Thus, we held in Roxas v.

[10]

Vasquez,

this Courts consistent policy has been to maintain noninterference in the

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/156427.htm

3/7

1/28/2015

TetangcovsOmbudsman:156427:January20,2006:J.Quisumbing:ThirdDivision:Decision

determinationoftheOmbudsmanoftheexistenceofprobablecause,providedthereisno
graveabuseintheexerciseofsuchdiscretion.Thisobservedpolicyisbasednotonlyon
respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the
OfficeoftheOmbudsmanbutuponpracticalityaswell.Otherwise,thefunctionsofthe
Court will be seriously 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
swampedwithcasesiftheycouldbecompelledtoreviewtheexerciseofdiscretiononthe
partofthefiscalsorprosecutingattorneyseachtimetheydecidetofileaninformationin
courtordismissacomplaintbyaprivatecomplainant.

In this case, the action taken by the Ombudsman cannot be characterized as

arbitrary,capricious,whimsicalordespotic.TheOmbudsmanfoundnoevidencetoprove
probablecause.Probablecausesignifiesareasonablegroundofsuspicionsupportedby
circumstancessufficientlystronginthemselvestowarrantacautiousmansbeliefthatthe
[11]
personaccusedisguiltyoftheoffensewithwhichheischarged.
Here,theComplaint
merely alleged that the disbursement for financial assistance was neither authorized by
lawnorjustifiedasalawfulexpense.Complainantdidnotciteanylaworordinancethat
providedforanoriginalappropriationoftheamountusedforthefinancialassistancecited
andthatitwasdivertedfromtheappropriationitwasintendedfor.
The Complaint charges Mayor Atienza with illegal use of public funds. On this
matter,Art.220oftheRevisedPenalCodeprovides:
Art.220.Illegal use of public funds or property. Any public officer who shall
apply any public fund or property under his administration to any public use other than
thatforwhichsuchfundorpropertywereappropriatedbylaworordinanceshallsuffer
thepenaltyofprisioncorreccionalinitsminimumperiodorafinerangingfromonehalf
to the total of the sum misapplied, if by reason of such misapplication, any damages or
embarrassmentshallhaveresultedtothepublicservice.Ineithercase,theoffendershall
alsosufferthepenaltyoftemporaryspecialdisqualification.
Ifnodamageorembarrassmenttothepublicservicehasresulted,thepenaltyshall
beafinefrom5to50percentofthesummisapplied.

The elements of the offense, also known as technical malversation, are: (1) the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/156427.htm

4/7

1/28/2015

TetangcovsOmbudsman:156427:January20,2006:J.Quisumbing:ThirdDivision:Decision

offenderisanaccountablepublicofficer(2)heappliespublicfundsorpropertyunderhis
administration to some public use and (3) the public use for which the public funds or
property were applied is different from the purpose for which they were originally
appropriatedbylaworordinance.Itisclearthatfortechnicalmalversationtoexist,itis
necessarythatpublicfundsorpropertieshadbeendivertedtoanypublicuseotherthan
[12]
To constitute the crime, there must be a

that provided for by law or ordinance.

diversionofthefundsfromthepurposeforwhichtheyhadbeenoriginallyappropriated
[13]
Patently,thethirdelementisnotpresentinthiscase.

bylaworordinance.

ConformablythenwithSection2,RuleIIoftheRulesofProcedureoftheOfficeof
[14]
theInvestigatingOfficermayrecommendtheoutrightdismissalofa

theOmbudsman,

complaintifhefindsthesamedevoidofmerit.

[15]
Thatisexactlywhathappenedinthis

case. Thus, no abuse of discretion, much less grave abuse, may be attributed to the
respondentOmbudsman.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. No
pronouncementastocosts.
SOORDERED.

LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/156427.htm

5/7

1/28/2015

TetangcovsOmbudsman:156427:January20,2006:J.Quisumbing:ThirdDivision:Decision

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice

CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice

DANTEO.TINGA
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionwerereachedinconsultation
beforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
AssociateJustice
Chairman,ThirdDivision

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division
Chairmans Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision
werereachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionof
theCourtsDivision.

ARTEMIOV.PANGANIBAN
ChiefJustice

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/156427.htm

6/7

1/28/2015

TetangcovsOmbudsman:156427:January20,2006:J.Quisumbing:ThirdDivision:Decision

[1]
Records,pp.4749.
[2]
Article220.Illegaluseofpublicfundsorproperty.Anypublicofficerwhoshallapplyanypublicfundorproperty
underhisadministrationtoanypublicuseotherthanthatforwhichsuchfundorpropertywereappropriatedbylawor
ordinanceshallsufferthepenaltyofprisioncorreccionalinitsminimumperiodorafinerangingfromonehalftothe
totalofthesummisapplied,ifbyreasonofsuchmisapplication,anydamagesorembarrassmentshallhaveresultedtothe
publicservice.Ineithercase,theoffendershallalsosufferthepenaltyoftemporaryspecialdisqualification.
Ifnodamageorembarrassmenttothepublicservicehasresulted,thepenaltyshallbeafinefrom5to50percentof
thesummisapplied.
[3]
Records,pp.5658.
[4]
Rollo,p.181.
[5]
Id.at182185.
[6]
Id.at222226.
[7]
Id.at247248.
[8]
SeeEsquivelv.Ombudsman,G.R.No.137237,17September2002,389SCRA143,151.
[9]
Baylonv.OfficeoftheOmbudsman,G.R.No.142738,14December2001,372SCRA437,449.
[10]
G.R.No.114944,19June2001,358SCRA636,646.
[11]
Supra,note9.
[12]
Parungaov.Sandiganbayan,G.R.No.96025,15May1991,197SCRA173,180181.
[13]
Peoplev.MontemayorandDucusin,No.L17449,30August1962,116Phil.78,81.
[14]
AdministrativeOrderNo.07oftheOfficeoftheOmbudsman.
Sec.2.Evaluation.Uponevaluatingthecomplaint,theinvestigatingofficershallrecommendwhetheritmaybe:
a)dismissedoutrightforwantofpalpablemerit
b)referredtorespondentforcomment
c)indorsedtothepropergovernmentofficeoragencywhichhasjurisdictionoverthecase
d)forwardedtotheappropriateofficeorofficialforfactfindinginvestigation
e)referredforadministrativeadjudicationor
f)subjectedtopreliminaryinvestigation.
[15]
SeeKnechtv.Hon.Desierto,G.R.No.121916,26June1998,353Phil.494,502.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/156427.htm

7/7