The Ombudsman has dismissed the cases against respondents Dauis mayor Marietta “Miriam” Sumaylo and her private secretary Merceditas Salinas after the anti-graft body released its joint resolution on Oct. 22, 2021 and received by the respondent’s counsel on Dec. 4, 2021.
The case stems from the allegations filed by complainants Raul Opeña and Eileen Cimafranca – Manuel for illegal use of funds, libel and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act or Republic Act (RA) 3019.
The complainants also filed a case of grave abuse of authority, grave misconduct and oppression against the respondents, according to lawyer Lord “Popot” Marapao IV, counsel for the respondents.
The joint resolution was penned by Marilyn Israel Torres, Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer II. The resolution was then reviewed by Euphemia Bacalso, Director of the Preliminary Investigation Administrative Adjudication and Prosecution Bureau and Carls Juris Tanco, Assistant Ombudsman for the Visayas. The resolution was then recommended for approval by Paul Elmer Clemente, Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas and approved by Ombudsman Samuel Martires.
The complainants Opeña and Cimafranca Manuel filed the case against the respondents, Sumaylo and Salinas, regarding the alleged illegal acts committed in relation to an advertisement published in two local newspapers including The Bohol Tribune.
The publication is a “Notice to the Public”. The publication is a notice about Opeña and Cimafranca Manuel’s resignation from the positions they previously held. Opeña is the former private secretary of Sumaylo and Cimafranca Manuel is the former executive assistant at the Local Government Unit (LGU) of Dauis.
The Ombudman said that there is no probable cause to indict the respondents, Sumaylo and Salinas for the allegations in the case filed by Opeña and Cimafranca Manuel.
“The evidence on record is short of establishing probable cause for the crimes of Illegal Use of Public Funds or Property, Libel and Violation of Sec. 3 (e) of R.A. 3019,” the Ombudsman said in its ruling contained in the joint resolution, a copy of which was furnished to The Bohol Tribune.
Some elements of the crime alleged by the complainants are “wanting”, the Ombudsman said in the resolution.
The Ombudsman also junked the allegations of grave abuse of authority, grave misconduct and oppression as the anti-graft body found no probable cause to indict the respondents.
BACKGROUND
“As culled from the Joint Complaint-Affidavit, complainants aver that on October 28, 2018, while reading the local weekly newspaper at their respective homes, they were surprised to see their names with their photos on it in one of the pages of the Bohol Tribune and Bohol Chronicle. Said notice is informing the public that they [complainants] had resigned from their respective positions as Private Secretary II and Executive Assistant I on August 15, 2018 and October 15, 2018, respectively. The notice also informs the public that “xxx any transaction entered by them relative to their former positions on or after the dates of resignation shall NOT be honored by the Municipality of Dauis xxx”, the Ombudsman narrated in the joint resolution.
“The font size and the language used in the notice tend to impute to them of some malicious act which they never committed. The posting of the notice in the two local newspapers was attended with malice and bad faith, intended to demean and discredit their reputation. As such, the notice wounded their feelings, made them suffer mentally and caused them serious anxiety and social humiliation which prompted them to file the instant complaint,” the Ombudsman wrote in the resolution.
“Accordingly, the use of public fund to defray the publication of the notice in the two local newspapers, without authority by the Sangguniang Bayan (SB), constitutes the crime of Illegal Use of Public Fund. Similarly, the published notice caused them undue injury through bad faith, partiality and gross inexcusable negligence that constitutes a violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019,” the resolution reads.
As this developed, the Ombudsman ordered the respondents to file their respective counter-affidavits and to submit evidence.
Respondents deny the allegations and maintain that this complaint is politically motivated as complainants have signified to run for the positions of mayor and vice mayor. In the 2019 polls.
Respondents pointed out that no public fund was disbursed to pay any advertisement, particularly, the said notice in the two local newspapers.
This is supported by the respective Certifications issued by Municipal Accountant Emmanuel P. Ungab and Acting Municipal Treasurer Dolly M. Usaraga stating that no funds from the town government was used to pay for the publication of the said notice.
“On October 26, 2018, a certain Jose A. Nistal requested from respondent Salinas a certification stating that complainants had already resigned from their respective positions with the LGU of Dauis. While requesting for said certification, Nistal showed to respondent Salinas a copy of a police blotter caused by one Vanisa Bunayog – who reported an incident on October 23, 2018 wherein complainant Cimafranca Manuel represented herself to be still connected with the LGU of Dauis. At that time, complainant Cimafranca Manuel had already resigned as Executive Assistant I. Other than Nistal’s information, respondent Salinas also received reports of similar nature from officials and employees of LGU of Dauis,” the Ombudsman quipped.
“It being her ministerial duty to issue certifications, respondent Salinas issued the requested Certification dated October 26, 2018,” the resolution further reads.
“However, on October 28, 2018, respondent Salinas was surprised to see in the papers the edited version of the Certification she issued to Nistal. Not only that the Certification was edited, the notice was published with photos of complainants. Respondent Salinas had no idea of Nistal’s intention to publish the Certification she issued,” the Ombudsman revealed.
“Respondents stress that it was Nistal who caused the publication of the notice. They also stress that it was Nistal who paid the publication as evidenced by the Official Receipts (ORs) issued by the Tribune and the Chronicle to Nistal. On the other hand, respondents emphasize that perusal of the notice does not contain any defamatory remarks nor words that would tend to demean complainants’ reputation,” the resolution quipped.
Then, the Ombudsman ordered to submit their respective verified position papers. To date, only respondents filed their Joint Position Paper reiterating what they said in their Joint Counter-Affidavit.
OMBUDSMAN’S REASON TO JUNK THE CASES
In its resolution the Ombudsman said: “As evidenced by OR Nos. 3875 and 0081685 both dated November 26, 2018, issued by the Bohol Tribune and the Bohol Chronicle, respectively, it is clear that it was Nistal who caused and paid the publication of the notice relating complainants’ resignation from the positions they held at the LGU of Dauis.”
“The ORs are strong and competent evidence to establish that respondents had no hand in the publication of the notice. Although respondent Salinas indeed issued a Certification dated October 26, 2018 relating complainants’ resignation from the LGU of Dauis, as requested by Nistal, such issuance for a legal purpose is in accordance with her ministerial duties. The Certification she issued is accorded with regularity,” the Ombudsman added.
“Moreover, the Certifications issued by Municipal Accountant Ungab and Acting Municipal Treasurer Usaraga stating that the Municipality of Dauis did not disburse any public fund to defray the notice belies the allegation of Illegal Use of Public Fund,” the Ombudsman further said.
“Notably, there is a glaring difference of the wordings in the Certification issued by respondent Salinas and the one published in the newspapers. For one, respondent Salinas’ designation as shown in the newspapers is Administrative Assistant III, contrary to her actual designation as Private Secretary II. This alone clearly shows that respondents, particularly respondent Salinas had no hand in publishing the notice. Also, in the Certification she issued, it states there that the same was issued upon the request of Nistal. Hence, whatever Nistal had done with the Certification is beyond respondents’ control. And the publication of the notice in the newspapers which was based on the Certification issued by respondent Salinas cannot be attributed to them. Simply put, the allegations against respondents are unfounded,” the anti-graft investigator revealed.
“The allegations against respondents are without basis. To reiterate, it is established that respondents did not cause the publication of the notice on complainants’ resignation from the LGU of Dauis. It is very clear from the records that it was Nistal who indeed caused and paid the publication in the two local newspapers in Bohol. As such, any complaints surrounding the publication of the notice cannot be ascribed to respondents,” the Ombudsman explained.