Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
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.
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
[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,
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.
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
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