GR 212416; (December, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. 212416 . December 05, 2018
ROEL R. DEGAMO, PETITIONER, V. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND MARIO L. RELAMPAGOS, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Negros Oriental Governor Roel Degamo filed a criminal complaint for Usurpation of Authority or Official Functions against DBM Undersecretary Mario Relampagos. The complaint stemmed from the withdrawal of a Special Allotment Release Order (SARO) and Notice of Cash Allocation (NCA) worth P961.5 million, intended for the province’s post-disaster rehabilitation. The Office of the President had approved the release, charging it against the Calamity Fund. However, upon the request of the DPWH Secretary and by order of the DBM Secretary, Relampagos, in a letter-advice signed “By Authority of the Secretary,” informed Degamo of the SARO’s withdrawal pending a DPWH evaluation of the local government’s project implementation capability. Degamo refused to return the funds and accused Relampagos of falsely acting under the authority of the President, thereby usurping the Executive Secretary’s exclusive function.
ISSUE
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint for Usurpation of Authority or Official Functions against Undersecretary Relampagos for lack of probable cause.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the Ombudsman’s ruling. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the Ombudsman’s determination of lack of probable cause for Usurpation of Authority under Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code. The legal logic is twofold. First, the crime of usurpation requires that a person, without being lawfully entitled, shall “perform any act pertaining to any person in authority or public officer” under pretense of official position. The Court held that Relampagos did not perform acts pertaining to the President or Executive Secretary; he performed acts pertaining to his own office as DBM Undersecretary. His directive to withdraw the SARO was a function inherent to his operational authority under a valid department order, exercised upon the orders of his superior, the DBM Secretary.
Second, there was no pretense or false representation of authority. Relampagos signed the communication in his own name and capacity, clearly indicating it was “By Authority of the Secretary” of the DBM. He did not claim to be acting as or for the President or the Executive Secretary. His act was a legitimate exercise of a departmental function concerning budget execution and realignment, not an unlawful assumption of the functions of a higher office. The Ombudsman’s finding that the elements of the crime were absent was thus supported by substantial evidence and was within its constitutionally mandated discretion. Absent a clear showing of arbitrariness, the Court will not substitute its own judgment for that of the Ombudsman in the determination of probable cause.