3 former town officials may be liable for malversation but not for graft – SC
By Rey Panaligan
The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that three former officials of San Jose town in Occidental Mindoro could be charged only with technical malversation but not with graft for allegedly using funds not for the purpose stated in the law.
In a decision written by Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, the SC partially granted the petition filed by former San Jose Mayor Jose T. Villarosa, former town treasurer Carlito T. Cajayon and former town accountant Pablo I. Alvaro.
The three former officials challenged the ruling of the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) which found probable cause to charge them with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and malversation in resolutions issued in 2015.
The charges against them were filed by Rolando C. Basilio for graft, technical malversation, grave abuse of authority, grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Basilio claimed that the three former officials approved the use of the municipality’s “Trust Fund” derived from tobacco excise taxes under Republic Act No. 8240 for expenses not within the purpose for which the fund was created, including the procurement of 10 “reconditioned” multi-cab vehicles amounting to P2.1 million.
While the OMB found them liable for graft and technical malversation, the SC said they could be indicted only for technical malversation.
The SC ruled that “the mere act of using government money to fund a project which is different from what the law states you have to spend it for does not fall under the definition of manifest partiality nor gross inexcusable negligence” under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 3019.
It also said: “A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed and was committed by the suspects. Probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilty, neither on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilty.”