Selective Prosecution

Hole of Justice

By Peter G. Jimenea

Selective Prosecution

In 2006, two government auditors from the Commission on Audit (COA), filed a case for alleged tampering of receipts against four Bacolod City Hall employees. The amount involved was less than P100,000 but all the four respondents were dismissed by the Ombudsman.

Perhaps, the evidence of guilt is strong against the four employees on why the Ombudsman dismissed them all. But three of these employees cried injustice, Budget Officer Luzviminda Treyes, Asst. City Treasurer Lilia Ursos and Project Development Officer Leo Villanueva.

The same fate happened to a provincial collection officer of Negros Occ. with a P16,000 cash shortage. This she can easily settle but the Ombudsman slapped her with a stiff penalty. This inquisitor should know that extreme enforcement of law may lead to injustice. (Berico vs. CA, 225 SCRA 562).

Justice of the Ombudsman seems to have two faces. Look at the COA’s report on the Property, Plant and Equipment (PPE) of the Iloilo City government in 2009 (last term of Mayor Jerry Trenas) and compare it to the cases of the lowly Negros Occ. government employees.

I don’t think this is our justice system under the Aquino administration. But as noted, justice today seems to have two faces. One side is in favor of the rich and the other is frowning for the blatant disregard to equal justice deserving to the poor!

Look, the Iloilo City government under then Mayor Trenas has P1.305B fund in 2009. But after the December audit, P821M cannot be reconciled due to lack of supporting papers or have no documents at all. On why COA has suddenly kept mum after reporting the mess, only God knows. But the P821M people’s money seemed to have disappeared in the course of time!

It does not end there. Under his administration, the city government has also a failed Housing Project, the construction of 413 units of houses for the poor city hall employees. It started in 2001 with P137M budget but sad to say, it ended in 2009, without a unit that can be seen standing and completed. 

Thus, graft cases were filed at the Office of the Ombudsman against then Mayor Trenas and cohorts in 2004. To date, however, the Ombudsman is still groping in the dark for probable cause to indict the mayor. My God, what a blatant display of stupidity!

Probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not, a crime has been committed. Here any prudent and reasonably discreet man will easily believe the unlawful spending of the P137M is embraced in RA 3019, so who are they kidding?

 

Although there is no formula or fixed rule for the determination of probable cause, it depends solely to a large degree on the finding or opinion of the one judging it. Now it redounds to an investigation-in-eternity, widely believed in exchange for – you know what!

 

Sec. 26 of RA 6770 (Inquiries) The Ombudsman shall act promptly on the complaint filed by anyone in any form and in any manner. If he finds the same baseless, he shall dismiss the case and inform the complainant of such dismissal.

 

Then what keeps the graft case of Trenas in suspended animation for nine years? If there is no probable cause, why not dismiss the case? Jurisprudence says, culpa lata dolo a equiparatur – gross negligence is equivalent to malice or intentional wrong. (Balatbat vs. CA, 261 SCRA 128). It is written though, he who offends when drunk shall be punished when sober!