Title
Sarigumba vs. Sandiganbayan
Case
G.R. No. 154239-41
Decision Date
Feb 16, 2005
Mayor Sarigumba misused P330,000 CDF funds, distributing them as personal gifts, falsified documents to justify expenses, and was charged with malversation and falsification despite eventual liquidation.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 154239-41)

Background of the Case

In 1994, Congressman Ramiro offered P10,000.00 to each of the 33 barangay captains of Tudela as personal gifts; however, this amount was sourced from his Countrywide Development Fund (CDF). Mayor Sarigumba secured cash advances totaling P330,000.00 against the CDF, leading to distribution among the barangay captains, who believed they were receiving grants rather than public funds intended for a peace and order campaign. Liquidation vouchers, attended by the signatures of barangay captains, were later submitted to COA to account for the disbursements.

Allegations of Impropriety

Complaints arose asserting that the assembly meetings mentioned in the liquidation reports did not occur as described. The barangay captains claimed the funds given by Sarigumba were understood to be cash gifts, and signatures were improperly collected for false attendance. An investigation by the Commission on Audit (COA) prompted further scrutiny, where it was determined that official receipts were issued without the corresponding sums being actually returned.

Proceedings Before the Ombudsman

The Ombudsman initiated a preliminary investigation resulting in the filing of charges for malversation and falsification of public documents against the petitioners. The Sandiganbayan later received and examined the findings of the prosecutors, leading to formal accusations against Sarigumba, Gallego, and Dagondon based on their alleged malfeasance in managing the funds.

Judicial Review and Rulings

The Sandiganbayan deemed sufficient probable cause existed to warrant the trial of the petitioners on the charges with emphasis on the allegations in the Informations filed citing malversation. The petitioners sought to dismiss the charges based on arguments that the funds had been liquidated and no loss was proven, but these were dismissed by the court.

Denial of Motions to Dismiss

The petitioners argued against the charges, claiming good faith and lack of actual loss to the government. However, the Sandiganbayan maintained that there were indicators of malfeasance and that attempted justification of the actions would need to be explored during the trial itself, thus refusing to quash the Informations against them.

Supreme Court’s Findings

The Supreme Court found the petitioners’ assertions of a lack of probable cause unconvincing. Emphasizing that probable cause pertains merely to a reasonable belief of guilt based on available evidence, the Court ruled that the Sandiganbayan had not committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motions to dismiss.

Legal Principles Applied

The issues in the case involved definitions of malversation and falsification under the Revised Penal Code. Malversation c

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.