SC denies Carmen Mayor's “motion”

DEFENSES piled by Carmen Mayor Pedro Budiongan, Vice Mayor Josil Trabaho, six councilors and two municipal officials toppled with the Supreme Court's (SC) First Division affirming an Ombudsman's no to a their motion for reconsideration. In a resolution promulgated September 22, 2006 , the SC also dismissed a motion for certiorari filed by the Carmen elected and appointed public officials against the Office of the Special Prosecutor of the Ombudsman. Earlier, Mayor Budiongan Jr., Vice mayor Trabajo, Councilors Rufino Adlaon, Tito Montajes, Mario Soria, Alfonso Unajan, Carlito and Vicente Torrefranca Jr., Municipal Treasurer Fulgencio Paña and Budget officer Taciana Espejo were charged for violations of Republic Act 3019.

The charges have something to do with giving unwarranted benefits to a contractor and allegedly directly or indirectly having a financial or pecuniary interest in a transaction, which they intervene in official capacities. A complaint filed by Arlene Palgan and Valeriano Nadala to the Ombudsman for the Visayas dated July 3, 2003 detailed an alleged illegality. Respondents were accused of allegedly conducting bidding, awarding a project and allowing the asphalt overlay works on Tan Modesto Bernaldez Street without legally appropriating funds for it. The realignment ordinance only came out May while the construction started as early as March. By July 31, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas recommended the filing of an information for the violation of Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code against the local officials. Article 220 is basically about the technical malversation of public funds.

The Office of the Special Prosecutor of the Ombudsman meanwhile recommended the modification of the charge from article 220 to Republic Act 3019 or the anti-graft and corrupt practices act. Filing a motion for leave of court to file motion for reinvestigation, the petitioners alleged that the information filed at the Sandiganbayan did not afford them the chance to rebut the modified charges. The Sandigan however denied the motion in September 2005. When petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration for the resolution, the Office of the Special Prosecutor denied it for lack of merit.

The Special Prosecutor maintained that the right for preliminary investigation, which petitioners alleged as denied of them, the courts said petitioners were given chances to refute the charges in their counter affidavits. The modification of the offense charged, even without affording petitioners a new preliminary investigation did not amount to the violation of their rights, the resolution stated. As the petitioners filed a certiorari in hopes to invalidate the Office of the Special Prosecutor's resolution denying the petitioners motion for reconsideration, the motion was dismissed for lack of merit outright. The same resolution penned by Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago also affirmed the memorandum for probable cause of violations churned out by the Office of the Special Prosecutor, Office of the Ombudsman. Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban, Associate Justice Alicia Austria-Martinez, Romeo Callejo Jr. and Minita Chico-Nazario concurred with the resolution.

l