G.R. No. 154239-41 - Sarigumba vs. Sandiganbayan

In 1994, during a meeting at Atty. Bernadette P. Encinareal’s residence, then-Congressman Hilarion J. Ramiro, Jr. promised to give each of the 33 barangay captains of the Municipality of Tudela, Misamis Occidental, P10,000.00 as a personal cash gift.
The funds allegedly came from the Congressman’s Countrywide Development Fund (CDF), which was remitted to the Municipal Treasurer via two allotments (P220,000.00 and P110,000.00) supported by corresponding check numbers.

Petitioner Mayor Felix L. Sarigumba secured a cash advance against the CDF for a total of P330,000.00, utilizing Voucher Nos. 9411-422 and 9412-445.
The vouchers detailed an advance for payments related to snacks for a peace and order assembly, but in reality, each barangay captain received only P9,500.00, having agreed to remit P500.00 each to the Association of Barangay Captains (ABC).

Voucher No. 9412-478 for P220,000.00, claiming the funds were used for meals and snacks during the assembly;
Voucher No. 9412-488 for P110,000.00, similarly stating the expenses were related to the peace and order meetings.

Petitioner Emma C. Dagondon and petitioner Sherlita R. Gallego approved the respective liquidation vouchers, with supporting attendance sheets purportedly evidencing the meetings.

Several individuals, including Flaviano Zaide, William Gumisad, Edilberto Quinalagan, Maria Pacaro, and Virginia Tampoog, filed a complaint before the Ombudsman. They alleged that:

No proper assembly or peace and order meeting was held for the disbursement;
The funds, though documented as being for campaign-related expenses, were in fact distributed as cash gifts.

The Commission on Audit (COA) was tasked to investigate. Barangay captains were directed to return the amounts received and provide receipts, which led to confusion and subsequent re-liquidation of the funds, with COA eventually finding that there was no actual loss to government funds.

The Sandiganbayan’s Committee on Legal Matters and Committee on Finance, Budget and Appropriations uncovered:

Variations in the amounts released (some barangays receiving P9,500.00 and others P9,400.00);
Evidence suggesting that the funds were disbursed as a personal gift from Congressman Ramiro rather than exclusively for a peace and order campaign.

The Ombudsman, based on the COA report and other documents, issued a resolution finding probable cause for:

Criminal Case No. 24505 for malversation;
Criminal Case No. 24506 for falsification (involving Sarigumba and Gallego); and
Criminal Case No. 24507 for falsification (involving Sarigumba and Dagondon).

During hearings, the Sandiganbayan noted the discrepancies in the liquidation process, the re-characterization of the fund’s purpose by barangay captains, and issues in the supporting documentation (e.g., fabricated attendance sheets).
The court’s preliminary investigation led to the issuance of warrants for arrest, the posting of cash bail bonds, and multiple motions by the petitioners to dismiss or cancel pre-trial proceedings, all of which were ultimately denied by the court.

The funds were sourced from Congressman Ramiro’s CDF and not his own, and the disbursement to the barangay captains was in line with the Congressman’s promise;
The liquidations submitted were in order, and no actual loss was incurred by the government according to the COA report.

Petitioners Dagondon and Gallego, along with Sarigumba, maintained that they had acted in good faith and that the re-liquidation process confirmed the absence of malversation or falsification intending to defraud the government.

After multiple clarificatory hearings and the issuance of orders denying motions to dismiss and reconsider the cases, the Sandiganbayan maintained its finding of probable cause against the petitioners.
Petitioner Sarigumba later filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, contending that the Sandiganbayan had committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motions to dismiss and reconsider the case.

Whether there exists sufficient probable cause to maintain the criminal charges (malversation and falsification of public documents) against the petitioner-mayor and the other petitioners.
Whether the Sandiganbayan’s findings on the mischaracterization of the disbursement—i.e., labeling the funds as used for peace and order meetings versus their actual use as a cash gift—are adequately supported by the evidence.
Whether the actions and decisions of the lower court amounted to a grave abuse of discretion, thereby exceeding or lacking jurisdiction.
Whether the petitioners’ contention that the liquidation and eventual accounting of the cash advances negated any damage to government funds holds merit under the applicable law.