FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 227986. August 7, 2019.]
LEOVIGILDO C. SANTOS, petitioner, vs. FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 7, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 227986 (LEOVIGILDO C. SANTOS, Petitioner, v. FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Respondent.) — After a judicious perusal of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for review on certiorari and to AFFIRM the August 14, 2015 1 decision and October 21, 2016 2 resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 123863.
The petitioner insists that there are newly discovered documents that were unavailable during the investigation of the Ombudsman, which the CA failed to consider, and which remained to be unavailable during its investigation; that he signed the transfer of PVAO funds in accordance with his public functions; that the Ombudsman failed to show substantial evidence that he agreed to employ the Kiting scheme and manipulate the funds of PVAO by transferring it to a non-accredited government depositary bank. 3
The arguments are unpersuasive.
This Court has repeatedly held that if an alleged newly discovered evidence could have very well been presented during the trial with the exercise of reasonable diligence, the same cannot, at all, be considered newly discovered. 4 Here, the CA correctly held that the documents alleged by the petitioner as newly discovered evidence have been in existence and available before the Office of the Ombudsman rendered its decision. 5
As to the substantive issue presented, the Court firmly held that as a rule, factual findings of the Ombudsman and the CA are conclusive and binding in the absence of grave abuse of discretion. 6 We find no reason to deviate from the factual findings of both the Ombudsman and the CA in the case at bar. A finding of guilt in an administrative case would have to be sustained so long as it is supported by substantial evidence that the petitioner has committed acts stated in the complaint. 7 To Our mind, the facts established and the evidence presented support the finding of guilt on the part of the petitioner.
WHEREFORE, We AFFIRM the decision promulgated on August 14, 2015 in CA-G.R. SP No. 123863.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 13-32; penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, and concurred in by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez, and Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez.
2.Id. at 34-36.
3.Id. at 56-90.
4.Ybiernas v. Tanco-Gabaldon, G.R. No. 178925, June 1, 2011, 650 SCRA 154, 169.
5.Rollo, p. 35.
6.Fajardo v. Corral, G.R. No. 212641, July 5, 2017, 830 SCRA 161, 167.
7.Office of the Ombudsman v. Santos, G.R. No. 166116, March 31, 2006, 486 SCRA 463, 470.