Villarosa.docx

CASE 2019-0001: JOSE T. VILLAROSA ET AL VS. THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN ET AL (G.R. NO. 221418, 01 FEB 2019, PERALTA J.) SUBJECT/S: TECHNICAL MALVERSATION; MANIFEST PARTIALITY, GROSS NEGLIGENCE (BRIEF TITLE: VILLAROSA VS OMBUDSMAN)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court dated December 1, 2015 of petitioners Jose T. Villarosa, Carlita T. Cajayon and Pablo I. Alvaro is PARTLY GRANTED. The Joint Resolution dated March 23, 2015 and Order dated July 29, 2015 of the Office of the Ombudsman are AFFIRMED only insofar as its finding of probable cause against petitioners for the crime of Technical Malversation.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT ARE THE THREE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME OF TECHNICAL MARVERSATION?

THE 3 ELEMENTS ARE:

(A) THAT THE OFFENDER IS AN ACCOUNTABLE PUBLIC OFFICER;

(B) THAT HE APPLIES PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY UNDER HIS ADMINISTRATION TO SOME PUBLIC USE; AND

( C) THAT THE PUBLIC USE FOR WHICH SUCH FUNDS OR PROPERTY WERE APPLIED IS DIFFERENT FROM THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THEY WERE ORIGINALLY APPROPRIATED BY LAW OR ORDINANCE.

ACCORDING TO THE OMBUDSMAN TECHNICAL MALVERSATION RESULTED IN THE USE OF FUNDS TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF THE FARMERS AND IN FAVOR OF OTHER CONCERNS OF THE PETITIONERS THUS THERE WAS MANIFEST IMPARTIALITY. IS IS CORRECT?

WRONG.

ACCORDING TO THE SUPREME COURT:

“For an act to be considered as exhibiting “manifest partiality,” there must be a showing of a clear, notorious or plain inclination or predilection to favor one side rather than the other.32 “Partiality” is synonymous with “bias” which “excites a disposition to see and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are.”