The Supreme Court has affirmed the rulings of the Office of the Ombudsman finding probable cause for technical malversation against some San Jose, Occidental Mindoro local government officials, in connection with the disbursement of their LGU share from the revenue of the tobacco excise tax.
In a 13-page decision, the SC’s Third Division through Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta partly granted the petition of Jose T. Villarosa, Carlito T. Cajayon and Pablo I. Alvaro, and upheld the Ombudsman’s joint resolution dated March 23, 2015 and order dated July 29, 2015 which found probable cause against the petitioners for technical malversation, but cleared of liability under the Republic Act 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
The case arose from the complaint filed by Rolando Basilio before the anti-graft body, accusing the petitioners with charges of graft, technical malversation, grave abuse of authority, grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best of interest of the service against Villarosa, Alvaro, and Cajayon, the municipal mayor, municipal treasurer, and municipal accountant, respectively, of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro.
The complainant accused the officials of conspiring to approve the use of the municipality’s “Trust Fund” derived from tobacco excise taxes under R.A. 8240 for expenses not within the purpose for which the said fund was created, including the procurement of 10 “reconditioned” multi-cab vehicles amounting to P2,115,000
In its ruling, the SC found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the anti-graft body when it found probable cause to indict Villarosa and others of the crime of technical malversation.
“A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed and was committed by the suspects. Probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilty, neither on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilty,” the high court stressed.
However, the SC did not find basis to charge Villarosa, Cajajon and Alvaro with the crime of manifest partiality or gross negligence under RA 3019.
“The mere act of using government money to fund a project which is different from what the law states you have to spend if for does not fall under the definition of manifest partiality nor gross inexcusable negligence,” it pointed out.
“The ends of justice will be better served through the conduct of a full-blown trial as there is no evidence that the Ombudsman acted in a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amount to lack or excess of jurisdiction in its finding of probable cause,” the SC said.