Ombudsman denies Cotabato town exec, BAC members’ motion on purchase of eyeglasses for senior citizens

KIDAPAWAN CITY – The Ombudsman has denied the motion for reconsideration filed by a vice mayor and government officials in Makilala town in North Cotabato related to the administrative and criminal charges filed against them. The Ombudsman, in its decision to dismiss such motion, said it found no ground to grant the reconsideration prayed for by Makilala vice-mayor Ricky Cua and members of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) of the Makilala municipal government, which include municipal engineer Roel Caoagdan municipal budget officer Mario Ranis administrative officer Edwin Arellano and local treasury operation officers Pio Abonado and Giovanni Ignacio. The administrative and criminal complaints filed against them stemmed when Cua allegedly overpriced in 2013 the more than 300 pairs of eyeglasses he distributed to senior citizens in Makilala. In July 2015, the Ombudsman found probable cause to indict Cua and BAC members for violation of Section 3 (e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act 3019) and Article 217 for malversation of public funds or properties and Article 171 for falsification by a public officer under the Revised Penal Code. Cua, in his motion for reconsideration, claimed that his right to due process was violated in his indictment, as these were not among those for which he was charged. He also questioned the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause for his falsification of official receipts and abstract of canvass and argued that such was based merely on hearsay evidence.Also, he claimed he had no role or participation in the preparation of voucher and payments for the purchase of those pairs of eyeglasses. The Ombudsman, however, said Cua’s indictment for two counts of falsification and one count of violation of Section 7 (a) of RA 6713 and Section 35 (3), Article 21 of the Government Procurement Act, is satisfactorily established by facts and evidence on record. Also, it said Cua was not deprived of due process because he was afforded the opportunity to refute all the accusations against him, including those from BAC members.Yet, it said, the vice mayor failed to do so. The BAC members, on the other hand, asserted that they should not be faulted for signing BAC Resolution Number 2013-S-009 and the Abstract of Canvass, for which their indictment for two counts of falsification was based, as they did it in good faith and without any criminal intent and that no damage was incurred because the amount involved, which was P99 thousand, was refunded to the government in October 2015. The Ombudsman, however, resolved to deny such argumentation. It has cited two reasons for its denial. First, it said the existence of damage or intent to cause damage, is not an element of falsification of public documents. Under paragraph 2, Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, what need to be proven is that first, the offender causes it to appear in a document that a person or persons participated in an act or a proceeding, and second, such person or persons did not in fact so participate in the act or proceeding,” it explained. By signing the BAC resolution and the Abstract of Canvass, it stressed, BAC respondents effectively caused it to appear that they have shopped for the prices of the questioned eyeglasses that three eligible suppliers quoted and that the winning bidder gave the most advantageous price. The Ombudsman also explained that the claim of ‘good faith’ is untenable or weak. As held, an individual’s personal good faith is a concept of his own mind, and may not conclusively be determined by his protestations alone,” it added.