G.R. No. 197567 , November 19, 2014.
GOVERNOR ENRIQUE T. GARCIA, JR., Petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, LEONARDO B. ROMAN, ROMEO L. MENDIOLA, PASTOR P. VICHUACO, AURORA J. TIAMBENG, and NUMERIANO G. MEDINA, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Enrique T. Garcia, Jr., the incumbent Provincial Governor of Bataan, filed a criminal complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman against respondents, who were former and incumbent provincial officials, and others. The complaint stemmed from a contract entered into on November 3, 2003, by then-Governor Leonardo B. Roman with V.F. Construction for the construction of a mini-theater at the Bataan State College – Abucay Campus for ₱3,660,000.00. On February 23, 2004, Roman issued a Certificate of Acceptance stating the project was 100% completed, based on an Accomplishment Report and Certification dated February 20, 2004, prepared and signed by other provincial engineers. Consequently, two disbursement vouchers were prepared, and two Land Bank checks totaling ₱3,310,636.36 were issued to V.F. Construction in April and June 2004. However, upon inspection authorized by Governor Garcia in August 2004, the project was found to be unfinished. The Ombudsman, in a Resolution dated May 30, 2006, found probable cause to indict the provincial engineers for Falsification of Public Documents but dismissed the charges against respondents Roman, Mendiola, Vichuaco, Tiambeng, and Medina for lack of probable cause, applying the presumption of good faith under the Arias doctrine. Garcia moved for reconsideration, citing a Commission on Audit (CoA) Memorandum which stated the project had no source of funds, rendering the contract void and payments illegal. The Ombudsman denied the motion in an Order dated October 9, 2009.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion in dismissing all the criminal charges against respondents for lack of probable cause.

RULING

The petition is partly meritorious. The Supreme Court found that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the charges for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and for Technical Malversation under Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code against respondents Roman, Vichuaco, Tiambeng, and Medina. The Court held that the Arias doctrine, which presumes good faith in relying on subordinates, is not an absolute defense. The CoA Memorandum, which found that the project had no appropriation or source of funds, was a vital piece of evidence the Ombudsman unjustifiably failed to consider. This omission, coupled with the patent violation of the legal requirement for a prior appropriation before any contract can be entered into or payment made, constituted grave abuse of discretion. The CoA findings indicated that respondents, in their respective official capacities, acted with gross inexcusable negligence in certifying the existence of an appropriation and in approving and effecting payments for an unfunded and unfinished project, causing undue injury to the government. However, the Court upheld the Ombudsman’s dismissal of the charges for Malversation through Falsification, as the elements of malversation were not sufficiently alleged. The charges against respondent Mendiola were also upheld as dismissed due to insufficient allegations of his participation. The case was remanded to the Ombudsman for the filing of the appropriate informations for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and for Technical Malversation against respondents Roman, Vichuaco, Tiambeng, and Medina.