by Miriam G. Desacada
The Ombudsman for the Visayas dismissed, for lack of evidence, the administrative and criminal complaints against the then vice mayor Ramon Oñate (now mayor) of Palompon, Leyte and Isagani Jaena, municipal planning and development office head of the same town.
In an 11-page resolution (dated 27 February 2023), approved by Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas Dante Vargas (on 02 March 2023), the two respondents were cleared of criminal charges for graft and corruption, and of administrative charges for alleged violation of the code of conduct and ethical standards for public officials.
The complainant, a certain Henry Encarnacion, accused Oñate of “unlawfully approving the construction of a road,” allegedly on the respondent’s property, at Barangay San Joaquin in Palompon, “using public funds and resources of the municipality…benefitting from such construction.”
Encarnacion alleged that, in 2019, the respondent caused the realease of funds for the construction of the 1.37-kilometer access road located on a property, which the respondent bought earlier. Although the lot was still registered under the names of Severino, Rivera and company, payment of real property taxes was effected by respondent’s wife Lourdes to show that the latter already owned the property in question.
In their counter-affidavit, done through a position paper, Onate clarified that the project “was not a road construction but a road rehabilitation.” It was verified also that it is an old and existing road, which has been used as an access road or a short cut way of residents from nearby barangays going to the town proper.
The concreting done on the otherwise rough road even made the transport of products from the barangays to the town proper, thus it served the purpose of benefitting the public, not the respondents.
Besides, the Ombudsman ruled that payment of real property taxes does not prove ownership of the lot, the title name of which does not even carry the name of the respondent at all. The complainant failed to produce other veritable evidences to prove his allegations that Onate owns the land where the road project was implemented.
It was also proven that Jaena did not connive to make a favorable program of work for the project to facilitate the release of funds, because it had been checked and approved by the Commission of Audit first before it went to Onate’s office for approval.
The respondents could not violate the anti-graft law because the project followed Presidential Decree 1445, which provides that government funds shall be spent or used solely for public purposes, which was what the project had achieved.
The Ombudsman ruled that the c0mplainant, has the burden of proving his accusations with sufficient evidence. “The parties must rely on the strength of their own evidence, not upon the weakness of the defense,” ruled the anti-graft body.
The Ombudsman ruled: “There is no evidence to establish that respondent Onate owns the property where the road project is. Complainant did not present any title or its equivalent to establish that respondent indeed owns the questioned lot…’ because “payment of realty taxes is not equivalent to proof of ownership.”
The improvement of the access road at Brgy. San Joaquin “benefits many people including those from other barangays,” thus it was” evident that the project was for the public purpose,” the Ombudsman ruled.
The administrative charges likewise fail, the court said. “There exists no evidence to establish that respondent Onate, directly or indirectly, has financial of material interest in the rehabilitation of the barangay access road project,” ruled the Ombudsman.
In the case of alleged violation of Republic Act 6713 (Code of Conduct or Ethical Standards of Government Officers), the Ombudsman ruled that the norms set in this law “is not an actionable wrong… it merely enunciates professionalism as an ideal norm of conduct to be observed by public servants, in addition to commitment to public interest, justness and sincerity…responsiveness to the public, … and simple living.”
The implementing rules of this particular law “do not provide any administrative sanction for failure to observe these norms of conduct,” said the Ombudsman in dismissing the charges against Onate and Jaena. —Miriam G. Desacada