GR 159949; (February, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 159949 ; February 27, 2006
VADM. MARIANO J. DUMANGCAS, JR., Petitioner, vs. HON. SIMEON V. MARCELO, OMBUDSMAN, ET AL., Respondents.
FACTS
This petition for certiorari under Rule 65 assails the Ombudsman’s orders affirming the finding of probable cause against petitioner Vice Admiral Mariano J. Dumangcas, Jr. The case originated from special audits conducted by the Commission on Audit (COA) on the Headquarters of the Philippine Navy (HPN). The COA auditors, after evaluating transactions for the periods covering 1990 to 1993, filed complaints with the Office of the Ombudsman based on adverse findings of alleged violations of accounting and auditing rules.
The audit reports detailed numerous irregularities, including the misuse of funds obligated in 1984-1985 to pay for 1990-1991 transactions, procurement without public bidding, emergency purchases of non-urgent items leading to overpricing, unaccounted deliveries of medicines and construction materials, alterations in supporting documents, and purchases from non-participating suppliers. Petitioner, as a responsible official, was implicated. The Ombudsman found probable cause for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
ISSUE
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause against petitioner.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause. The Court reiterated the well-established doctrine that a writ of certiorari will only lie if there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that it does not interfere with the Ombudsman’s exercise of investigatory and prosecutory powers absent such a clear showing.
The legal logic is anchored on the principle of non-interference. The determination of probable cause is an executive function within the discretionary authority of the Ombudsman. The Court’s review is limited to checking for arbitrariness. In this case, the Ombudsman’s finding was based on substantial evidence from the detailed COA audit reports, which outlined specific financial anomalies and procedural violations. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Ombudsman’s decision was rendered in a capricious, whimsical, or despotic manner. The existence of contrary evidence or a different possible conclusion does not equate to grave abuse of discretion. Therefore, the Ombudsman acted within the bounds of its constitutional mandate.