The Office of the Ombudsman dismisses the charges filed against Mabini Mayor Juanito Jayoma according to records that were provided to The Bohol Tribune. 
The Ombudsman has cleared Jayoma of allegations of malversation of public funds. Illegal use of public funds or property, usurpation of legislative powers, violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, conduct unbecoming of a public officer, grave misconduct, ans violation of the Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160).
In a six-page joint resolution signed by Carmelle Baybay-Suson, Graft Investigator and Prosecution Officer II and reviewed by Jane Aguilar, director of the Preliminary Investigation, Administration, Adjudication, and Prosecution Bureau-B, and Carla Juris Narvios-Tanco, Asst.Ombudsman-Visayas, it was known that the charges filed against the Mabini town mayor are dismissed, pending the completion of the fact finding investigation by the Ombudsman.
The joint resolution was approved by Ombudsman Samuel Martirez on June 4, 2019.
The complaint against Jayoma was filed by Jesha Cuyacot-Toque, Alexis T. Bagabaldo, Ester Elle-Anchuelo, Ongie Grace Bemales-Lim, Victoriano  D. Jotojot, Nemrod C. Ybañez, Myra Fostanes-Colis, Erwin  V. Uy, who are members of the Sangguniang Bayan (SB) of the Municipality of Mabini.
In the resolution, it was mentioned that, “ When respondent (Jayoma) assumed as Mayor in June 2016, he noticed that the heavy equipment and vehicles of the municipality were merely parked at the vicinity of the municipal hall compound because of the absence of a motor pool building. These vehicles were exposed to severe weather conditions, obstructed the traffic, and caused hazard to the motorists.”
It was further mentioned in the same resolution that, “Respondent presented  the problem  to the Municipal Planning and Development Council (MPDC). The MPDC passed Resolution No. 2016-08- l5C, series of 2016, requesting the SB to allocate funds for the construction of a motor pool building through the realignment of PhP162,000.00 from the PhP2,000,000.00  budget for the renovation of Poblacion  Public  Market  Eateries  which  was sourced from the 20% Development Fund of 2016. The SB, however, did  not grant MPDC’s request. Thus, respondent charged the construction of the motor pool building  to  the  PhP202,429.98  budget   for  the  Additional Municipal Development Initiative Program  under Appropriation Ordinance No. 2015-04 which was a continuing appropriation in CY 2016.”
The story gets complicated when the Commission on Audit made a move.
“The Commission on Audit (COA), however, issued a Notice of Suspension in the purchase of construction materials for the motor pool building on the ground that respondent had no authority from SB to enter into a contract in the construction of the motor pool considering that the source of funds for the subject procurement was taken from a lump-sum continuing appropriation,” the resolution reads.
As a result, a complaint was filed against the Mabini mayor.
The resolution further states: “Complainants contend that in pursuing the construction of the motor pool building without the authority from the SB, respondent allegedly violated the provisions of R.A. No. 7160 which resulted to the commission of technical malversation and violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).”
The mayor responded to the allegations as the resolution narrates that, “Respondent,  in  his  Counter  Affidavit,  avers  that  the supporting documents relative to the construction of the motor pool building negates complainants’ accusations against him.”
“Verification of the records of this Office (Ombudsman) show that on August 8, 2017, complainants previously requested, thru SB Resolution No. 2017-108, for a conduct of a fact finding investigation on the   alleged irregularities committed  by respondent. One  of  the  irregularities  mentioned  in  their request was the alleged illegal construction of the motor pool building which is also the same subject matter of the instant complaint. The Office acted on their request and docketed the fact finding investigation as FF-V-17-0777. To date, fact finding investigation is currently on-going. Based on the foregoing, it would appear that complainants did not wait for the outcome of the fact finding investigation that they requested in 2017, instead, they filed a formal complaint against respondent solely on the issue of the alleged illegal construction of the motor pool building. Thus, here are two investigations conducted by this Office all at the same time, involving the same subject matter,” the resolution bares.
“Moreover, aside from the Notice of Suspension and the September 12, 2018 explanation letter of respondent to COA, there is nothing in the records that would explain whether a Notice of Disallowance was subsequently issued on the expenses incurred for the construction of the motor pool building. Be it noted that a Notice of Suspension is issued for the transaction of doubtful legality/validity/propriety to obtain further explanation  or documents a Notice of Disallowance will consequently be issued if no settlement through submission of the justification/explanation and/or documentation is submitted by the persons required to settle. It is the Notice of Disallowance that is considered as an audit decision and not the Notice of Suspension. Hence, the absence of any information from the records of the case on whether a Notice of Disallowance was issued, the Office could not fully determine if respondent is indeed liable  for the offenses charged. This predicament could be properly addressed by the outcome of the on-going fact finding investigation involving the construction of the motor pool building,” the Ombudsman explained in the resolution.
The Ombudsman saw it proper to avoid conflicts and said in its resolution, “ Thus, to avoid any conflict on the findings by this Office, it is deemed appropriate to await for the completion of the on-going fact finding investigation which was conducted way ahead of the filing on this complaint on November 7, 2018.”
As a result, the Ombudsman decided to dismiss the charges, by saying, “Let the complaint be DISMISSED without prejudice to the outcome of the on-going fact finding investigation under FF­ V-17-0777. “
In another development, The Bohol Tribune was also able to gather the complete papers showing that the Court of Appeals (CA) granted the petition of Pilar Mayor Necitas Cubrado “to reverse and set aside” the decision of the Ombudsman.
The case against Cubrado was filed by complainants Wilson Pajo, Nicanor Mante, Eugenio Galleza, Cipriano Ellorimo, Saturnino Rodriguez, Tita Salazar, Misael Hilot and Wilfredo Bernante.
The case arise rom the fact that Cubrado gave an exemption to 95 indigent residents of the town from paying the necessary fees prior to connection to the electrical line to the Bohol Electric Cooperative 2.
She was charged before the Ombudsman for usurpation of legislative powers and grave misconduct after her executive assistant, Rogelio Mendez, signed a certification exempting 95 residents from paying the necessary fees.
The CA, in a decision dated Nov. 19, 2019, reversed and set aside the decision of the Ombudsman.
Earlier, the Ombudsman found Cubrado guilty of the said charges.
The CA decision that reversed and set aside the Ombudsman’s decision on Cubrado was signed by Associate Justice Gabriel Ingles, Associate Justice Marilyn Lagura-Yap and Associate Justice Carlito Calpatura.
In its decision, the CA said, “ In the case at bar, two (2) facts are  established  namely:  (1)  that petitioner, as Mayor, wrote a letter dated 28 August 2015 addressed to the Sangguniang Bayan requesting said local legislative body ‘to waive the municipal fees of the application for Household Intensification Program beneficiaries,’ and (2) said request was unanimously approved by the Sanggunian in SB Resolution No. 56, Series of 2016.”
“These facts clearly show the absence of any intent on her (Cubrado) part to make general rules or regulation beyond the scope of her authority or attempt to repeal a law or suspend the execution thereof’ or usurp the functions of the Sangguniang Bayan,” the court in its decision added.
“Moreover, the fact that Mayor Cubrado had to write the Vice Mayor a letter a day after she issued the certification evidently shows that she has no intention of granting the exemption all by herself. Quite the contrary, she left it to the Sangguniang Bayan to do the appropriate action in order to effect the exemption. This act negates willful intent to violate established rules, malice, or bad faith on her part. If indeed Cubrado granted an exemption through the questioned certification, then there would be no need on her part to write the Sanggunian, through the Vice Mayor, a letter of request for the grant of exemption. Verily, Cubrado’s act cannot be described as serious, important, weighty, and momentous so as to warrant her dismissal from service,” the court further explained.
“It may not be a miss to add that there is nothing in the records which would show that the 95 beneficiaries had already enjoyed the benefit of an exemption from payment of municipal fees on the strength of the questionedcertification,” the court said.
Furthermore, the court explained, “All told, the Court is not prepared to punish Cubrado for merely issuing a certification, the legal effect of which remains doubtful. Without more, and there being no substantial evidence existing from the records to hold Cubrado liable for grave misconduct, the judgment here can be no other than total exoneration.”