The Ombudsman's Mess

Hole of Justice

By Peter G. Jimenea

A Jurisprudence for the Ombudsman

Rafael Coscolluela served as governor of Negros Occidental for three full terms from July 1992 to June 30, 2001. During his tenure, Edwin Nacionales served as his Special Projects Head, Jose Ma. Amugod as assistant and Ernesto  Malvas as Provincial Health Officer.

On November 9, 2001, the Office of the Ombudsman Visayas received a letter-complaint dated November 7, 2001 from the People’s Graftwatch, requesting to investigate the anomalous purchase of medical and agricultural equipment for P20,000,000.00 which allegedly happened a month before Coscolluela stepped down from office.

Acting on the letter-complaint, the Case Building Team of the Ombudsman conducted its investigation. A Final Evaluation Report dated April 16, 2002, upgrading the complaint into a criminal case was filed. The respondents also filed their respective counter-affidavits.

On March 27, 2003, the assigned Graft Investigation Officer Butch E. Cañares prepared a Resolution (March 27, 2003 Resolution), finding probable cause against respondents for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, or the “Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act” and recommended the filing of corresponding information.

On even date, the Information was prepared, signed by Cañares and submitted to Deputy Ombudsman for Visayas Primo C. Miro for recommendation.  Miro recommended the approval of the Information on June 5, 2003. Looks like the same mess happened to the Iloilo City Housing Project Scam of 2001.

Acting Ombudsman Orlando Casimiro approved it May 21, 2009 and was filed only at the Sandiganbayan on June 19, 2009. The same mess Casimiro has done to Iloilo City. The case against former Mayor (now Cong) Jerry Trenas, Treasurer Catherine Tingson, Engr. Edwin Bravo, City Administrator Melchor Tan and contractor Alex Trinidad was not yet filed and is still floating in the air to date!

The case that has consumed the city for years seems not good for the Office of the Ombudsman. It took them five years from 2004 to 2009 to find probable cause against the above-named accused. It creates a bad impression for these people that the delay was done in exchange for - you know what!

Probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that most likely than not,  a crime has been committed. It demands more than suspicion and requires less than evidence to justify indictment. An unauthorized payment of P43M by Iloilo City Mayor Trenas to the contractor is already embraced in RA 3019. So who are they kidding?

The case that has consumed the City of Iloilo for years seems not good for the Office of the Ombudsman. Look, it took them five years from 2004 to 2009, just to find a probable cause against the above-named accused.  Probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that most likely than not, a crime has been committed.

It demands more than suspicion and requires less than evidence that would justify indictment. An unauthorized payment of P43M plus to the contractor is already embraced in RA 3019. Culpa lata dolo a equiparatur – gross negligence is equivalent to malice or intentional wrong. (Balatbat vs CA, 251 SCRA 128).

On July 9, 2009, Coscolluela filed a Motion to Quash arguing, among others, that his constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases was violated. He alleged they learned about the March 27, 2003 Resolution and Information only when they received a copy of the latter shortly after its filing with the SB

He cited that the criminal charges against him were resolved only after eight (8) years since the complaint was instituted and the speedy disposition of his case is guaranteed under the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Nacionales, Malvas, and Amugod later adopted his motion.

The Sandiganbayan finally recognizes the prejudice caused to the petitioners by the lengthy delay in the proceedings against them. Conversely, it was the Office of the Ombudsman’s responsibility to expedite the same within the bounds of reasonable timeliness in view of its mandate to promptly act on all complaints lodged before it.

As pronounced in the case of Barker v. Wingo: A defendant has no duty to bring himself to trial; the State has that duty as well as the duty of insuring that the trial is consistent with due process. All graft-investigators from the Office of the Ombudsman and Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales herself should take this lesson to the heart.