51. Tetanngco Vs. Sanditangbayan.docx

Valenton, Francis Angelo T.

Criminal Law 2

1S Tetangco vs. Ombudsman (G.R. No. 156427)

Facts: The petitioner is Amando Tetangco. The respondents are: Hon. Ombudsman and mayor Jose L. Atienza, Jr. In the case at bar, the petitioner filed a complaint before the ombudsman against the private respondent for having given P3,000 financial assistance to each barangay chairman and P1,000 to each barangay tanod of barangay 105, zone 8, District I. Such funds was disbursed from the City of Manila. The counter-affidavit of the private respondent denied all the allegation and sought dismissal. He contends that it was the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and not the Ombudsman who has jurisdiction of the case. And the same case had already been previously filed before the COMELEC. Hence, the Ombudsman then dismissed the complaint due to the lack of evidence and merit.

Issue: Is the Ombudsman correct in dismissing the complaint.

Held: The Supreme Court said that it is within the powers of the Ombudsman to dismiss the complaint without merits. The Section 2, Rule II of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, the Investigating officer may recommend such outright dismissal of the complain if he finds such complaint devoid of merit. Also, the Supreme Court said that in order to hold someone liable for technical malversation, the three requisites must concur. These are: “(1) the offender is an accountable public officer; (2) he applies public funds or property under his administration to some public use; and (3) the public use for which the public funds or property were applied is different from the purpose for which they were originally appropriated by law or ordinance.” In this case, the absence of any law or ordinance which appropriates such funds, the private respondent cannot be held liable for technical malversation.