GR 169253; (February, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 169253; February 20, 2013
PACIFICO C. VELASCO, Petitioner, vs. THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN (Fifth Division) and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Pacifico C. Velasco, then Mayor of Bacarra, Ilocos Norte, was charged with Illegal Use of Public Funds under Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code. The charge stemmed from a 1998 cash advance of ₱670,000.00, sourced from the municipality’s personal services fund, for the purchase of a road grader authorized by the Sangguniang Bayan. After his term, the equipment was missing. Petitioner claimed he mortgaged the grader to refund the cash advance after expected national funding failed, and that the municipality used and maintained the equipment during his term.
The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon initially dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause. However, upon a review directed by the Ombudsman, the Office of Legal Affairs recommended indictment for technical malversation, finding the cash advance was unlawfully drawn from funds appropriated for salaries. A revised Information for Illegal Use of Public Funds was subsequently filed with the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner moved for reinvestigation, arguing the charge differed from the Ombudsman’s initial finding and that he was denied due process. The Sandiganbayan denied his motion and subsequent reconsideration.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s motion for reinvestigation.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in the negative, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic centers on the nature of preliminary investigation and due process. A preliminary investigation is not a trial on the merits but an inquiry to determine probable cause. The Ombudsman has the discretion to determine what crime, based on the evidence, should be charged. The shift from a potential charge of technical malversation to Illegal Use of Public Funds is permissible; the Information’s designation is not controlling, as the court can correct any error in the qualification of the offense based on the facts alleged and proven.
On due process, the Court held it is satisfied when a party is given a fair opportunity to explain his side. Petitioner actively participated by filing a counter-affidavit and a motion for reconsideration of the Ombudsman’s resolution indicting him. He was fully informed of the acts complained of and availed himself of the avenues to refute the allegations. Consequently, the Sandiganbayan’s denial of the reinvestigation, which is not a matter of right after a finding of probable cause, was within its sound discretion. The petition for certiorari was dismissed for lack of merit.