Tetanco v.

Ombudsman and Mayor Atienza

FACTS:
This is a petition for certiorari seeking to annul and set aside the order of
public respondent Ombudsman dismissing the Complaint of petitioner Tetanco
against private respondent Mayor Atienza for the alleged violation of art. 220 of the
RPC.
Petitioner alleged that private respondent Mayor Atienza illegally disbursed
public funds when he gave financial assistance to the chairman and tanods of
Barangay 105, Zone 8, District I, since the disbursement was not authorized by law
or ordinance, which the Ombudsman did not consider when it dismissed the
Complaint of the petitioner, hence, it was capricious on the part of the public
respondent which amounted to abuse of discretion. The Ombudsman, through the
Solicitor General, contends that there was no abuse of discretion and there was also
no probable cause against Mayor Atienza for violation of art. 220 the RPC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there was indeed an abuse of discretion on the part of the
Ombudsman in the exercise of its public function?
RULING:
It is well-settled that the Court will not ordinarily interfere with the
Ombudsmans determination of whether or not probable cause exists except when it
commits grave abuse 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 hostility as patent and gross as to amount to evasion of positive
duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by, or in contemplation of law. In
this case, the action taken by the Ombudsman cannot be characterized as arbitrary,
capricious, whimsical or despotic. The Ombudsman found no evidence to prove
probable cause. Probable cause signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion
supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious
mans belief that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is
charged.