Morong Water District v. Office of the Deputy Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Morong Water District (MOWAD) filed a complaint against Edgard Sta. Maria (former General Manager) and Emma Censon (Advisor) for alleged violations of R.A. 3019 and Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. Sta. Maria received a cash advance of P33,190.73 for the Wawa pipeline extension project. He submitted a partial liquidation of P15,000.00 and a final liquidation of P16,790.40. The complaint alleged that the funds were pocketed and not used for the project, and that Engineer Ricardo Reyes, to whom P15,000.00 was allegedly paid, was a fictitious person. Sta. Maria claimed he was ousted due to prior complaints he filed against board members and that the original design plans were left at the office. Procedural History: The Office of the Ombudsman, through Graft Investigation Officer Aleu A. Amante, dismissed the complaint for lack of sufficient evidence to establish probable cause. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was also dismissed. The Petition: Petitioner assailed the Ombudsman's resolution and order, alleging grave abuse of discretion, arbitrariness, and whimsical disregard of evidence that clearly established a prima facie case for malversation.
Issue(s)
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint for malversation and violation of R.A. 3019, considering the evidence presented. Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for malversation and violation of R.A. 3019, and whether demand is a necessary element for malversation.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Resolution dated March 28, 1994, and the Order dated May 27, 1994, of the Office of the Ombudsman are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and sufficiency of evidence: The Supreme Court reiterated that petitions against decisions of the Ombudsman are entertained only on pure questions of law, not on findings of fact, as long as such findings are supported by substantial evidence. The Court found that the Ombudsman's findings were supported by substantial evidence on record. The journal voucher and reimbursement expense receipt indicated that the cash advance was duly liquidated. The diversion of P16,790.40 to the Paglabas Pipeline Extension was authorized by the Board of Directors. The P15,000.00 balance was covered by a reimbursement expense receipt signed by Engineer Ricardo Reyes, and the certification from the Local Water Utilities Administration that Reyes was not an employee did not conclusively prove he was fictitious, as the receipt did not claim he was an LWUA employee. The Court noted that the evidence, including that submitted by the petitioner, supported the Ombudsman's conclusion that the amounts were liquidated. Therefore, the Ombudsman's dismissal of the complaint was not arbitrary or whimsical, dispelling allegations of grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that it is not a trier of facts and will not overturn the Ombudsman's decision if supported by substantial evidence. On the necessity of demand for malversation and its impact on probable cause: The Court clarified that while the petitioner's contention that demand from the Commission on Audit is not always necessary for malversation is correct, its reliance on U.S. vs. Saberon was misplaced as that case dealt with failure to render accounts (Article 218, RPC), not malversation (Article 217, RPC). The Court cited People vs. Tolentino and Nizurtado vs. Sandiganbayan to support the principle that previous demand is not an element of malversation, and demand merely raises a prima facie presumption. However, this point did not alter the outcome, as the Ombudsman's dismissal was primarily based on the finding of sufficient liquidation and lack of probable cause, not on the absence of demand.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court will not interfere with the findings of fact of the Office of the Ombudsman when supported by substantial evidence, and will only entertain petitions on pure questions of law. Allegations of grave abuse of discretion must be substantiated by proof of arbitrariness or capriciousness in the Ombudsman's findings.