G.R. No. 221418 , January 23, 2019
JOSE T. VILLAROSA, CARLITO T. CAJAYON and PABLO I. ALVARO, Petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN and ROLANDO C. BASILIO, Respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Rolando C. Basilio filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against petitioners, who were the Municipal Mayor, Municipal Accountant, and Municipal Treasurer of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro. The complaint alleged that petitioners approved the use of the municipality’s “Trust Fund,” derived from tobacco excise taxes (Tobacco Fund) under R.A. No. 8240 , to finance the municipality’s regular operations. It was contended that these expenses were not within the specific purpose for which the Tobacco Fund was created. An additional allegation was that Mayor Villarosa procured ten reconditioned multi-cab vehicles without indicating their reconditioned status in the bidding documents.
Petitioners, in their defense, argued that the use of the Tobacco Fund was lawful. They claimed the funds came from the congressional share of Representative Amelita Villarosa, who delegated the spending authority to the Municipal Mayor. They asserted there was no prohibition against treating these funds as part of the General Fund. Petitioners Cajayon and Alvaro maintained their roles were merely ministerial, involving the certification and processing of disbursements with complete supporting documents and available appropriations as per Sangguniang Bayan resolutions.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause to indict petitioners for Technical Malversation and violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 .

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and upheld the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause. The Court emphasized that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 assailing the Ombudsman’s finding is limited to determining whether the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion, meaning a capricious, whimsical, or despotic exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The Court found no such abuse.
On the charge of Technical Malversation under Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code, the Ombudsman correctly determined that probable cause existed. The law requires that a public officer apply public funds under his administration to a public use different from that for which they were appropriated by law. The factual allegations—that the Tobacco Fund, allocated for specific projects, was diverted to fund general municipal operations—sufficiently constituted the elements of the crime. The petitioners’ defense, including the alleged delegation from the Congresswoman, was deemed a matter of defense best ventilated in a full-blown trial, not during the preliminary investigation for probable cause.
Regarding the charge under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 , the Ombudsman likewise properly found probable cause for causing undue injury or giving unwarranted benefits through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. The allegations of irregular procurement of vehicles and the diversion of specially allocated funds, if proven, could establish these elements. The Court reiterated that the Ombudsman’s determination of probable cause, based on a preliminary investigation, is generally not subject to judicial review absent a clear case of grave abuse. The Ombudsman’s findings were supported by the evidence on record and the applicable law, and thus were not arrived at arbitrarily.