View full case

AMANDO TETANGCO v. OMBUDSMAN

FACTS:

Petitioner Amando Tetangco filed a complaint before the Ombudsman alleging that Mayor Jose L. Atienza, Jr. illegally disbursed public funds when he gave cash financial assistance to the chairman and tanods of Barangay 105. The disbursement was not authorized by law or ordinance and was later refunded by the mayor. Mayor Atienza denied the allegations and sought the dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and for forum-shopping. The Investigating Officer recommended the dismissal of the complaint for lack of evidence and merit. The Ombudsman adopted the recommendation and dismissed the complaint. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied.

ISSUES:

  1. The sole issue is whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint against Mayor Atienza.

RULING:

  1. The petition lacks merit. The Court held that it will not ordinarily interfere with the Ombudsman's determination of whether or not probable cause exists except when it commits grave abuse of discretion. In this case, there was no grave abuse of discretion attributable to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman found no evidence to prove probable cause and the complaint only alleged that the disbursement for financial assistance was neither authorized by law nor justified as a lawful expense. Thus, the elements of the offense of technical malversation, as provided in Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code, were not present. The investigating officer may recommend the outright dismissal of a complaint if it is devoid of merit, which is what happened in this case. Therefore, no abuse of discretion, much less grave abuse, can be attributed to the Ombudsman.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The Court will not ordinarily interfere with the Ombudsman's determination of probable cause unless there is grave abuse of discretion.

  • Probable cause signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances strong enough to warrant a cautious man's belief in the accused's guilt.

  • In technical malversation, there must be a diversion of public funds or properties from the original purpose as provided by law or ordinance.