G.R. No. 156652 October 13, 2005
DR. BENITA F. OSORIO, Petitioner, vs. HON. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, as Ombudsman, et al., Respondents.
FACTS
The case originated from a letter-complaint filed with the Office of the Ombudsman accusing Dr. Benita Osorio, a public school principal, of various acts of dishonesty and malversation. The allegations included failure to account for facility rentals, non-remittance of proceeds from the sale of old newspapers and mandatory student contributions, irregular procurement, and misuse of school canteen and maintenance funds. The Ombudsman requested investigations by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and the Commission on Audit (COA).
The COA audit substantiated several allegations. It found that proceeds from the sale of old newspapers were not receipted or recorded, and that collections for Boy Scout and Girl Scout memberships exceeded authorized rates and were not fully remitted. It also reported irregularities in canteen fund management and the improper use of Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses for unauthorized construction projects. Based on these findings, the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas found probable cause and filed five counts of Malversation of Public Funds against Osorio before the Sandiganbayan.
ISSUE
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause to charge petitioner with malversation based on the investigative reports.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in the negative, affirming the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause and dismissing the petition. The Court emphasized that the determination of probable cause in a preliminary investigation is an executive function, primarily vested in the Ombudsman. Judicial review of such determination is limited to checking for grave abuse of discretion, which implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
The Court found no such abuse. The Ombudsman’s finding was based on the detailed COA audit report, which provided sufficient factual basis to engender a well-founded belief that offenses had been committed and that the petitioner was probably guilty. The audit findings of unaccounted cash collections, excessive unauthorized fees, and irregular financial practices constituted reasonable ground to proceed with prosecution. The Court reiterated that a preliminary investigation is not the venue for a full trial on the merits; its purpose is merely to ascertain whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed. The petitioner’s defenses involving the nature of the funds and the intent for their use are evidentiary matters best ventilated during a full trial. Consequently, the Ombudsman did not act with grave abuse of discretion, and the Court of Appeals’ decision affirming the Ombudsman’s resolution was upheld.