Header Ads

Ombudsman Junks Regencia Charges Vs. Marzo

By FRANK E. DOSDOS, JR.
Iligan City
In its Resolutions approved by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales on May 16, 2016, the Office of the Ombudsman dismissed Cases Nos. OMB-M-C-15-0252, OMB-M-C-15-O309, OMB-M-C-15-0384 and OMB-M-A-15-0466 filed by Celso G. Regencia and his allies against Ruderic C. Marzo and others.

The dispositive portion of the Joint Resolution on Cases No. OMB-M-C-15-0252 and OMB-M-C-15-0309, copies of which were furnished this office by Councilor Emmanuel C, Salibay, stated: “Wherefore, the Complaint is DISMISSED.”

Likewise in Cases No. OMB-M-C-0384 and OMB-M-A-0466, the Joint Resolution of the Ombudsman concluded: “Wherefore, for want of evidence the criminal and administrative charges are DISMISSED.”

In the first and second cases, CELSO G. REGENCIA and RAFAEL BENEDICTOS, JR. accused RUDERIC C. MARZO, PROVIDENCIO A. ABRAGAN, JR., MARLENE L. YOUNG, MICHELLE E. SWEET-BOOC, EMMANUEL C. SALIBAY, ARIEL P. ANGHAY, ROY L. OPENIANO, BAYANI C. AREOLA, ESAFINO F. OBIAL, ALFREDO R. BUSICO, CESARVE SIACOR and TOMAS O. CABILI of “Violation of Section 3 (a) and (e) of R.A. No. 3019 Falsification by Public Officer, Employee or Notary or Ecclesiastic Minister, Usurpation of Authority or Official Functions” and “Abuse of Authority; Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service; Dishonesty; Grave Misconduct.”

In the third and fourth cases (OMB-M-C-15-0384) and (OMB-M-A-0466), DEXTER REY T. SUMAOY, GIOVANNI M. ENCABO, RAFAEL A. BENEDICTOS, JR., EDGARDO B. PROSPERO and ZALDY C. LIM accused RUDERIC C. MARZO, PROVIDENCIO A. ABRAGAN JR., MARLENE L. YOUNG, MICHELLE E. SWEET-BOOC, EMMANUEL C. SALIBAY, ARIEL P. ANGHAY, ROY L. OPENIANO, BAYANI C. AREOLA, USAFENO F. OBIAL, ALREDO R. BUSICO, CESARVE SIACOR, TOMAS O. CABILI, GLENN A. QUIJOY, EULALIO G. GAITE, EMILIO T. RANA, MILA RODRIGO, LORETO L. TECSON II, and ANTHONY ABRINA and REJOICE S. SUBEJANO of “Violation of RA No. 3019 Falsification of Public Documents, Usurpation of Authority or Official Functions” and Grave Misconduct Abuse of Authority, respectively.

The fourth case, OMB-M-A-0466, is an administrative case filed against the same Respondents in Case No. OMB-M-C-0384 for “Grave Misconduct; Abuse of Authority.”

The first and second cases stemmed from the reinstatement of Respondent Tomas O. Cabili as City Legal Officer by Respondent Ruderic C. Marzo and concurred in by the Respondent Sangguniang Panlungsod.

Complainants alleged that on 27 April 2015, Complainant Regencia started serving his 6 months suspension without pay imposed by the Office of the President.





They further alleged that on 05 May 2015, Marzo in his capacity as Acting City Mayor reinstated Cabili as the City Legal Officer and endorsed for the approval of the SP, his appointment.

Complainants contend that the reinstatement of Cabili, the corresponding concurrence of respondent-SP Members, Cabili’s performance of official functions as City Legal Officer, and the giving of salaries to him are all illegal.

In its Joint Resolution the Ombudsman found that the records are bereft of evidence to prove that respondent conspired with one another to commit an offense in connection with their official duties.

It also stated that the Charge of Usurpation of Authority is unmeritorious.

The two other cases (OMB-M-C-15-0384 and (0MB-A-0486) involves the continuous performance of Ruderic Marzo as Acting Mayor although elected Mayor Celso Regencia had advised him and the Sangguniang Panlungsod that he was going to reassume office because he had served his 6-months suspension by the Office of the President.

The joint resolution of the Ombudsman finds that upon the complainant’s surrender for the criminal complaint of Multiple Murder and Multiple Frustrated Murder he was immediately detained, thus, being under detention, he was legally incapacitated to perform the duties of the City Mayor.

The Ombudsman cited its previous ruling wherein Mayor Vicente Fernandez of Matanao, Davao del Sur was found guilty of Grave Misconduct and meted him with the penalty of Dismissal from Service for his continuous discharge of his functions while in detention.

The Ombudsman also cited the ruling of the Supreme Court in “People vs. Maceda” where it unequivocally declared that a detention prisoner cannot hold a public office.

It also ruled that there is no evidence to support the charges against the SP Members. In like manner, the charges against Abragan, Cabili, Gaite, Rodrigo, Quijoy, Subejano, Abrina, Tecson and Rana are bereft of merit, as they only acted upon orders of authority, the Ombudsman concluded. The New Ranao Star

Post a Comment
Copyright. 2013. The New Ranao Star. Powered by Blogger.