Political Law: Ombudsman

FRANCISCO G. MAGAT et. al v DANIEL C. GALLARDO

GR No. 209375 June 10, 2020, SECOND DIVISION (Inting, J.)

FACTS:

Francisco Magat and Endgardo Gulapa, Sanggunian Bayan members of

Candaba were accused by Vice Mayor Daniel Gallardo of Grave Misconduct for
requesting and receiving cash advances from the local government to pay their
travel expenses for the National Congress of the Philippine Councilors League
but were found to be not among those who attended. Allegedly, to conceal their
misrepresentation, the accused conspired to pull out the official receipts issued
by PCL and replaced them with falsified ones. They were accused for violations
of Estafa and Falsification of Public Document.

The Graft Investigation Officer recommended the dismissal of the complaint for
Estafa and Falsification against the petitioners. Daniel Gallardo filed a motion
for reconsideration of the Resolution, but the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman
for Luzon denied it. Gallardo then pursued the administrative aspect of the
criminal case before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon. The office
discovered that there was a real attempt on the part of petitioners to liquidate
their cash advances by submitting falsified receipts issued by the PCL. The
Office of the Deputy of Ombudsman also found them guilty of dishonesty.

ISSUE:

Was the decision of the Ombudsman appealable to the Court of Appeals?

RULING:

Yes. Although the decision of the Ombudsman becomes final and binding
due to the delegated authority awarded upon them, it is only by judicial
review that the decisions of the Ombudsman may be appealed. The Court of
Appeals, in turn, found by administrative standards that all the events and
circumstances where taken together make a sufficient basis to find petitioners
guilty of dishonesty.

The CA correctly affirmed the findings of the graft investigator's ruling that
among the eight councilors who manifested their intention to attend the
conference, only petitioners were unaccounted for at the venue; that the official
receipts which were initially submitted for liquidation did not include those
Political Law: Ombudsman

bearing the names of petitioner; and that the official receipts mysteriously
disappeared from the files and were replaced by a different set of documents,