SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 235367. December 4, 2017.]
MA. LUISA J. LOOT, petitioner,vs. HONORABLE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY HONORABLE CONCHITA CARPIO-MORALES, IN HER CAPACITY AS TANODBAYAN, HONORABLE PAUL ELMER M. CLEMENTE, IN HIS CAPACITY AS DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE VISAYAS, HONORABLE CARLA JURIS NARVIOS-TANCO, IN HER CAPACITY AS ACTING ASSISTANT OMBUDSMAN FOR THE VISAYAS,ET AL., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 04 December 2017 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 235367 (Ma. Luisa J. Loot v. Honorable Office of the Ombudsman, herein represented by Honorable Conchita Carpio-Morales, in her capacity as Tanodbayan, Honorable Paul Elmer M. Clemente, in his capacity as Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas, Honorable Carla Juris Narvios-Tanco, in her capacity as Acting Assistant Ombudsman for the Visayas, et al.)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant petition and AFFIRM the December 16, 2016 Resolution 1 and August 7, 2017 Order 2 of the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) in OMB-V-C-15-0046 for failure of petitioner Ma. Luisa J. Loot (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause to indict her for violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act," and Malversation of Public Funds, as defined and penalized under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code.
As the Ombudsman correctly ruled, the evidence on record show that petitioner, as Mayor, entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with RBA Quail Raisers Association (RBA) without yet acquiring the authority from the Sangguniang Bayan (SB) of the Municipality of Daanbantayan. She likewise did not conduct periodic monitoring and evaluation to ascertain the progress of the project and the proper utilization of the funds — as required under the MOA. As Mayor, petitioner was accountable for all the public funds of the Municipality of Daanbantayan. She was also duty-bound to observe due diligence in securing first the proper authority from the SB before entering into contracts involving public funds, as well as in protecting the same. Such negligence may have permitted RBA to take, appropriate or misappropriate such funds for its own use and benefit, thereby defrauding the government. On this score, it should be emphasized that this Court's review powers over resolutions and orders of the Ombudsman — a constitutionally independent government agency — is restricted only to determining whether grave abuse of discretion, i.e., capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment, has been committed, 3 not mere errors or mistakes in the findings of fact and appreciation of the evidence. Thus, absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion, the Court has consistently sustained the Ombudsman's determination of the existence (or the nonexistence) of probable cause, as in this case. acEHCD
With the dismissal of the instant petition, petitioner's prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order is necessarily DENIED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 43-53. Signed by Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer I Marie Fe Frances W. Seville-Ang.
2.Id. at 54-62. Signed by Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer III Darius L. Sagadal.
3. See Villanueva v. Ople, 512 Phil. 187, 199 (2005).