MANILA, (PNA) — The Court of Appeals has absolved retired Overall Deputy Ombudsman Orlando Casimiro, Deputy Ombudsman Emilio Gonzales III and Graft Investigator and Prosecution Officer Robert Renido of criminal and administrative charges filed by a transport cooperative.
In an eight-page ruling promulgated on Aug. 15, 2013 and released to the media Wednesday, the CA’s 14th Division through Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao denied the petition for review filed by FH-GYMN Multi-Purpose and Transport Service Cooperative questioning the ruling of the Office of the President.
The FH-GYMN requested on July 26, 2004 the amendment of Kautusang Bayan Blg. 37-02-97 of San Jose del Monte City, Bulacan through the Committee on Transportation and Communications of the Sangguniang Panlungsod in order to include the authorization of its chairman to issue motorized tricycle operators permit to its members.
During the public hearings, city councilors Allan Ray Baluyut and Nolly Concepcion, together with ABC president Bartolome Aguirre and Noel Mendoza, were alleged to have uttered statements exhibiting their bias against FH-GYMN, giving FH-GYMN reason to believe the Committee members were favoring the existing franchisees Francisco Homes Tricycle Operators and Drivers Association and Barangay Mulawin Tricycle Operators and Drivers Association.
Acting on the recommendation of the Committee, the Sanggunian denied the request of FH-GYMN.
The FH-GYMN filed on July 15, 2005 a complaint before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon charging Baluyut, Concepcion, Aguirre, Mendoza with violations of the Cooperative Code, Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and R.A. No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct for Public Officials and Employees.
The complaint also charged Eduardo de Guzman, FRAHTODA president, and Wilson de Guzman, BMTODA president.
It was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence as to the public officials, and for lack of merit and lack of jurisdiction as to the private respondents.
The FH-GYMN sought reconsideration, however, its motion was denied.
It filed a complaint before the OP accusing Casimiro, Gonzales and Renido with violation of R.A. No. 3019 stemming from the dismissal of its complaint but was also denied.
In the CA ruling, it said “the OP did not err in finding no justification to hold respondents guilty of the charge of graft and corruption.”
“Petitioner cannot rely on mere surmises and conjectures in ascribing ill-motive against respondents Gonzales and Renido,” it added.
The CA said “petitioner failed to establish that respondent [Casimiro] deliberately left pending its complaint despite repeated follow-ups.”
It added “the OP explicated that petitioner’s letters were addressed not to respondent [Casimiro] but to [then Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez]. Still and all, we cannot allow petitioner to allude graft and corruption upon respondents when no concrete evidence lie against them.”