G.R. No. 206425 . December 05, 2016
Vilma N. Clave, Petitioner, v. Office of the Ombudsman [Visayas], Cebu City, Hon. Nelson Bartolome, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 67, Guimbal, Iloilo, Commission on Audit (COA), Regional Office No. VI, Iloilo City, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Vilma N. Clave was the General Manager of the Miagao Water District (MWD). Upon her appointment, she was promised financial assistance for relocating her family. The MWD, being financially constrained, advised her to secure a loan, which the board of directors assured would be paid by the MWD. The municipality later issued a P50,000.00 check as financial assistance to MWD. Clave issued Official Receipt (OR) No. 716 for the full amount, but the duplicate copy only indicated P300.00. She claimed she acted under the direct instructions of the MWD board.
After Clave resigned, a COA audit observed that OR No. 716 appeared falsified and the P50,000.00 could have been misappropriated. Clave explained her actions and, in a 2008 settlement, reimbursed the P50,000.00 to MWD. Despite this, the COA filed a criminal complaint in 2009. The Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas found probable cause for the complex crime of malversation through falsification of a public document, leading to the filing of an Information and the issuance of a warrant for her arrest.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause to charge Clave with malversation through falsification, despite her settlement of the amount and her claim of acting under the board’s instructions.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court held that the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that a finding of probable cause merely requires sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty. It is an executive function, and courts will not interfere absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, which implies a capricious, whimsical, or despotic exercise of judgment.
The Ombudsman’s determination was based on the discrepancy between the original and duplicate copies of OR No. 716, which prima facie suggested falsification. The subsequent reimbursement, while a mitigating circumstance, does not extinguish criminal liability for malversation and falsification, which are public crimes. Clave’s defense of acting under orders and the alleged settlement with the municipal mayor are matters of evidence best threshed out in a full-blown trial, not during the preliminary investigation. The Ombudsman did not act arbitrarily in finding that the evidence on record warranted a trial to determine the truth of the allegations. Therefore, the petition was denied for lack of merit.