FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 247769. September 16, 2019.]
ARNULFO CLAPIS, SIEGFREDO TOLENTINO, REDITO CLARIÑO, AND GASPAR SAONOY, petitioners, vs.THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN, MAYOR ARNULF BRYAN B. FUENTEBELLA, VICE MAYOR RUEL M. SAN GASPAR, ERNESTO N. ARCO, MICHAEL T. PELONIO,*MA. DINA V. PAULITE, AND MARIA ELENA G. SUMAYAO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 16, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 247769 (Arnulfo Clapis, Siegfredo Tolentino, Redito Clariño, and Gaspar Saonoy v. The Honorable Ombudsman, Mayor Arnulf Bryan B. Fuentebella, Vice Mayor Ruel M. San Gaspar, Ernesto N. Arco, Michael T. Pelonio, Ma. Dina V. Paulite, and Maria Elena G. Sumayao)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the October 3, 2017 Joint Resolution 2 and the August 15, 2018 Joint Order 3 of the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) in OMB-L-C-16-0194 for failure of petitioners Arnulfo Clapis, Siegfredo Tolentino, Redito Clariño, and Gaspar Saonoy (petitioners) to sufficiently show that the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the criminal complaint 4 against private respondents Mayor Arnulf Bryan B. Fuentebella, Vice Mayor Ruel M. San Gaspar, Ernesto N. Arco, Michael T. Pelonio, Ma. Dina V. Paulite, and Maria Elena G. Sumayao (respondents) for lack of merit.
The Ombudsman did not gravely abuse its discretion in finding no probable cause to indict respondents of the crime of Malversation of Public Funds 5 and violation of Section 3 (e) 6 of Republic Act No. 3019, 7 considering that petitioners failed to present any evidence that: (a) private respondents misappropriated or converted the public funds intended for the ARC projects to their own benefit or interest; and (b) the government suffered undue injury under the circumstances. 8 Time and again, the Court's consistent policy has been to maintain non-interference in the Ombudsman's determination of the existence of probable cause, provided there is no grave abuse in the exercise of such discretion, 9 as in this case.
SO ORDERED." Bersamin, CJ.andGesmundo, J.,both on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* "Micahel T. Pelonio" in some parts of the rollo.
1.Rollo (Vol. I), pp. 3-21.
2.Rollo (Vol. II), pp. 587-597. Approved by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales.
3.Id. at 610-613. Approved by Ombudsman Samuel R. Martires.
4.Rollo (Vol. I), pp. 27-43.
5. "The elements common to all acts of malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, are the following: (a) that the offender be a public officer; (b) that he had custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office; (c) that those funds or property were public funds or property for which he was accountable; and (d) that he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented, or through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them." (Zoleta v. Sandiganbayan, 765 Phil. 39, 53 [2015].)
6. "[T]he elements of violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 are as follows: (a) that the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial, or official functions (or a private individual acting in conspiracy with such public officers); (b) that he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence; and (c) that his action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge of his functions." (See Fuentes v. People, 808 Phil. 586, 591-592 [2017].)
7. Otherwise known as the "ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT" (August 17, 1960).
8. See rollo (Vol. II), pp. 593-594.
9.Cambe v. Ombudsman, 802 Phil. 190, 213-214 (2016).