GR 81476; (July, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 81476 ; July 26, 1991
COMMISSION ON AUDIT, petitioner, vs. TANODBAYAN and LOLITA G. LEDESMA, respondents.
FACTS
The Commission on Audit (COA), through Auditor Helen Gaabucayan, filed a complaint for Malversation of Public Funds against Lolita G. Ledesma, a cashier at the Ministry of Health. An audit for the period ending October 31, 1985, revealed significant irregularities, including a cash shortage of P413,859.35 allegedly under Ledesma’s name, unaccounted accountable forms, failure to maintain proper cashbooks for a Trust Liability Account, and withdrawals and transfers of funds without supporting documents. The audit also found that receipts from agencies like UNICEF were not issued with official receipts and that numerous transactions were not reported to the accounting section.
The Tanodbayan dismissed the complaint. It ruled the evidence could not establish a prima facie case that Ledesma put the missing funds to personal use. It noted her claim that previous COA auditors did not post-audit certain UNICEF disbursements as UNICEF conducted its own audit. It also found the transfer of P183,079.70 between accounts was not illegal as it was sanctioned by her superior and no law specified the source account was for a limited purpose only.
ISSUE
Whether the Tanodbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the malversation complaint against Ledesma.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and upheld the Tanodbayan’s resolution. The Court emphasized that the Tanodbayan’s role in preliminary investigations is to determine the existence of a prima facie case. The prima facie presumption of malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code arises only upon a conclusive showing that funds are missing, which presupposes the accuracy and regularity of the audit. Here, the Tanodbayan found the audit findings were not conclusive, as Ledesma presented voluminous vouchers and payrolls for liquidation which were reportedly refused during the audit, and a UNICEF certification cleared her of accountabilities for their funds.
The Court is not a trier of facts and, in a certiorari proceeding, reviews only jurisdictional errors or grave abuse of discretion, defined as a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to a refusal to perform a duty. The Tanodbayan’s evaluation of the evidence and its conclusion that the presumption of malversation did not arise fell within its discretionary authority. No such grave abuse was found. Furthermore, Presidential Decree No. 1630 grants the Tanodbayan immunity from judicial review of its opinions to enable it to perform its constitutional function without delay. The petition, which essentially questioned the Tanodbayan’s factual appreciation, was therefore dismissed.