04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly to each of the private respondents, broken down as follows: Name of Company Amount Paid Kumakata 1,340.00/each La Concepcion 500.00/each Rio Tuba 1,400.00/each TOTAL P3,240.00/each[8] Later on, however, the three above-mentioned companies issued their respective certifications claiming that they had already made payments in favor of the private respondents, thus: Name of Company Kumakata La Concepcion Rio Tuba Date of Certification October 09, 2001 Sept. 20, 2002 Aug. 21, 2002 Date of FBI Amount Paid Each July 18-20, P 900.00 2001 Dec. 05, P1,500.00 2001 Dec. 17-20, P1,500.00 2001 Total: P3,900.00 /each[9] Rio Tuba and La Concepcion, in their respective affidavits executed by their respective officers, however, explicated that the allowances given to private respondents did not include per diems and taxi fares. On 12 May 2003, convinced that private respondents' acts of claiming per diems and taxi fares from their agency constitute penal and administrative violations, the petitioner filed a complaint-affidavit charging private respondents of the Complex Crime of Estafa thru Falsification under Article 171(4) of the Revised Penal Code and violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 which were docketed as OMB-L-C03-0581-E and OMB-L-C-03-1374-K. From the same set of facts, private respondents were also charged with an administrative case for Gross Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Public Interest, docketed as OMB-LA-03-1059-K. In their Joint-Counter Affidavit[10] filed on 8 August 2003, private respondents admitted that each of them received the amount of P3,900.00 from the three companies. But they asserted that the said amount they received from the companies did not include per diems and taxi fares. In a Joint Resolution dated 16 July 2004, the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon Victor C. Fernandez recommended the dismissal of both the criminal and administrative cases hurled against private respondents on the ground that the said charges were premature. He opined that the controversy could have been settled had petitioner opted to exhaust administrative remedies. He also said that the complaint was done with apparent haste as no previous demand for refund was made by petitioner to private respondents as required by the Manual on the New Government Accounting System for National Government Agencies. Lastly, it was pointed out that the elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/44053 3/11