G.R. No. 197567 - GOVERNOR ENRIQUE T. GARCIA, JR., VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, LEONARDO B. ROMAN, ROMEO L. MENDIOLA, PASTOR P. VICHUACO, AURORA J. TIAMBENG, AND NUMERIANO G. MEDINA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, respondents should be indicted for such. However, the same does not hold true for the other crimes of Technical Malversation and Malversation of Public Funds through Falsification of Public Documents for reasons that will be hereinafter discussed. II. Probable cause, for the purpose of filing a criminal information, exists when the facts are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof. To engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, and to determine if the suspect is probably guilty of the same, the elements of the crime charged should, in all reasonable likelihood, be present. This is based on the principle that every crime is defined by its elements, without which there should be, at the most, no criminal offense. [61] The elements of the crime of Violation of Section 3 (e), [62] RA 3019 are as follows: ( a ) the offender must be a p ublic officer discharging administrative , judicial, or official functions; ( b ) he must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and ( c ) his action caused any undue injury to any party , including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits , advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions. [63] Considering the findings contained in the CoA Memo, which the Ombudsman, however, disregarded, it is quite clear that all the foregoing elements are, in all reasonable likelihood, present with respect to respondents participation in this case. Respondents, who were all public officers at the time of the alleged commission of the crime particularly, as provincial officials of Bataan discharging administrative functions ( first element ) apparently acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or, at the very least, gross inexcusable negligence when they issued the pertinent documents and certifications that led to the diversion of public funds to a project that had no proper allotment, i.e., the mini-theater project ( second element ). The absence of such allotment not only renders invalid the release of funds therefor but also taints the legality of the projects appropriation [64] as well as the Provinces contract with V.F. Construction. As the CoA Memo pertinently explains: Four contracted infrastructure projects and a financial assistance extended to [the] barangay by your administration amounting to P5,404,000 and P100,000, respectively, were found devoid of valid appropriations. Of the amounts, P4,992,750 was already paid while the remaining balance of P511,250 was lodged to Accounts Payable. The non-existence of valid appropriations rendered the contracts void and the payments illegal. The said projects were among the 19 provided with appropriations totalling P14,005,000 in the [P]rovinces 2003 Closing Budgets embodied under Ordinance No. A-6 and approved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan in its Resolution No. 54