By DAVE SUAN ALBARADO
The Office of the Ombudsman has reversed its earlier resolution and dismissed the criminal complaint against Dauis, Bohol Mayor Marietta Tocmo-Sumaylo, finding insufficient evidence of criminal intent in her issuance of a business permit to operate a cockpit arena without a valid franchise.
In an order dated Aug. 18, 2025, and signed by Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer III Imelda Marie B. Beltran, the anti-graft body granted the mayor’s motion for reconsideration and set aside its Feb. 18, 2025 resolution that found probable cause for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
“The Motion for Reconsideration of respondent-movant is granted. Accordingly, the assailed Resolution of this Office dated 18 February 2025 is hereby SET ASIDE, and the instant criminal complaint is ordered DISMISSED,” the order stated.
Vice Mayor Marie Nickie Bolos-Delgado was sworn in as mayor, one day after the Department of the Interior and Local Government directed her to assume office following verification that Sumaylo received an earlier Ombudsman decision July 24, 2025.
However, the latest Ombudsman order dismissing the criminal case was issued weeks before the swearing-in and dated Oct. 8, 2025, raising questions about the administrative succession.
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by Antonio Aranjuez Sumobay, who served as executive assistant to the municipal mayor from July 2022 to June 2023.
Sumobay alleged that Sumaylo issued Mayor’s Permit on June 9, 2022, allowing him to operate the Dauis Cockpit Arena despite having no franchise.
The original cockpit franchise, granted to Peter Emman M. Mende in 2001 under Municipal Ordinance No. 09-2000, expired June 29, 2021. However, the cockpit continued operating for more than a year without legal authority.
The franchise had changed hands multiple times through questionable transfers.
No Criminal Intent
In reconsidering its earlier resolution, the Ombudsman found “cogent reason to reconsider the assailed Resolution,” noting that the respondent-movant claimed denial of due process and that there was a misappreciation of facts.
The order stated that a review of records showed the respondent-movant “exercised circumspection as indicated in the following circumstances: (a) the issuance of the questioned Mayor’s permit is an isolated matter; (b) respondent has taken steps to prevent a similar incident; and (c) there is intent or good faith to comply with the municipal franchise ordinance by requiring the permittee to secure a cockpit franchise.”
The Ombudsman noted it was undisputed that when Sumaylo was municipal mayor, she issued a mayor’s permit to operate a cockpit arena.
“This is the only permit issued by the respondent, which highlights the isolated character of the permit.”
Moreover, the Sangguniang Bayan of Dauis eventually granted a cockpit franchise to the permittee after public bidding.
Good Faith
A critical factor in the Ombudsman’s reversal was the conditions attached to the mayor’s permit, which the order described as showing “clear intent on the part of the respondent-movant to obey the law.”
The permit articulated a condition stating: “Provisions of Laws, Rules, and Regulations which are now in force and other subsequent ordinances of the Municipality of Dauis pertaining to the aforementioned business shall be strictly complied with. It further provided that the permit expires on December 31, 2022, and maybe revoked anytime for violation of any provision of Laws, Rules and Regulations xxx.”
“To the mind of this Office, the colatilla conditions denote adherence to local ordinances, rules, and policies regulating the operation and management of cockpit business, which indicates lack of intent to perpetrate the prohibited act defined as malum prohibitum by Section 3 (j) of RA 3019,” the order stated.
The Ombudsman noted that “this is consistent to the basic principle that in mala prohibita, the intent to perpetrate must be shown as demonstrated by voluntary execution of prohibited acts penalized by special law.”
The order also noted that “the element of voluntariness is wanting as the respondent-movant has taken steps to abide by the franchise policy by requiring the permittee to execute a sworn Undertaking to: (a) participate in the franchise bidding; and (b) submit for revocation of his Mayor’s Permit should he fail to secure a franchise.”
“This undertaking is an indication that respondent-movant was not animated by any willful and conscious volition to perpetrate the commission of a crime. At most, the omission of respondent-movant is administrative in character,” the order stated.
Sumaylo’s legal counsel, Atty. Lord “Popot” Marapao IV, had earlier announced plans to challenge what was initially described as a dismissal order from the Ombudsman.
“Si Mayor Sumaylo adunay legal remedy ug kini ilang isang-at karong umaabot nga semana,” Marapao told DYTR News, indicating they planned to file an appeal.
The lawyer had outlined a multi-pronged legal strategy involving a motion for reconsideration and petition for review with prayer for temporary restraining order against implementation.
The Ombudsman’s Aug. 18, 2025 order dismissing the criminal complaint and the Oct. 8 date stamp on the document suggest the legal proceedings were still ongoing even as the administrative succession took place.