Title
Supreme Court
De Guzman vs. Gonzalez III
Case
G.R. No. 158104
Decision Date
Mar 26, 2010
Municipal Treasurer Angelita de Guzman faced malversation charges after a P368,049.42 cash shortage was found during an audit. Despite restitution and reinvestigation, the Ombudsman found probable cause, upheld by the Supreme Court, dismissing her petition for lack of merit.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 158104)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Background on the Petitioner and the Audit Petitioner Angelita de Guzman was the Municipal Treasurer of Claveria, Cagayan. An audit of her cash and accounts from January 26, 1999, to May 25, 2000, revealed a shortage of P368,049.42. This finding was documented in an affidavit by State Auditor II Erlinda F. Langcay.

Demand for Explanation and Non-Compliance
On October 30, 2000, the audit team issued a letter demanding that petitioner produce the missing funds and submit a written explanation within 72 hours. The letter was received on November 13, 2000, but petitioner failed to comply.

Indictment and Reinvestigation
Petitioner was indicted for malversation of public funds based on a resolution by the Ombudsman on November 27, 2001. She claimed she could not participate in the preliminary investigation as she was abroad. The court granted her request for reinvestigation, and she submitted her counter-affidavit and supporting evidence.

Prosecutor Bayag, Jr.'s Recommendation
After reinvestigation, Prosecutor Bayag, Jr. recommended dismissing the case due to insufficient evidence. He noted that the audit was incomplete as the cashbook certification was not accomplished, leaving the cashbook open. He also highlighted deposits made in November 2000 and January 2001, which corresponded to the alleged missing funds.

Graft Investigation Officer II Agbada's Recommendation
Graft Investigation Officer II Adoracion A. Agbada disagreed with Prosecutor Bayag, Jr.’s recommendation, finding probable cause. She argued that the lack of cashbook certification was a formal, non-substantive issue and that petitioner’s restitution of funds after receiving the demand letter did not negate her criminal liability.

Office of the Deputy Ombudsman’s Decision
The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, through Officer-in-Charge Emilio A. Gonzalez III, approved Agbada’s recommendation to proceed with the prosecution. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

Issues:

  • Whether public respondents committed grave abuse of discretion in recommending the continuation of the prosecution despite the reinvestigating prosecutor’s finding of insufficient evidence, as the audit was not yet complete.
  • Whether public respondent Langcay gravely abused her discretion in filing the criminal complaint despite the non-completion of the cash audit.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.