ILOILO City – The Office of the Ombudsman, in two separate resolutions, dismissed the administrative and criminal complaints filed against former City Civil Registrar Romeo Caesar l. Manikan, Jr. and his wife Eireen, and former Civil Registry employee Joemarie Esteral.
First, the anti-graft body in a joint resolution dated Jan. 15, 2021, dismissed the case for violation of Section 3(h) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019) and administrative complaint for Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service filed against Manikan by Christy Joy Sandoval.
Sandoval’s complaint was relative to her alleged petition for correction of the birth certificate of her husband. She accused Manikan of collecting an excessive amount of P14,500 as payment for the processing.
Manikan welcomed the decision of the Ombudsman.
“Gina-welcome ko ang joint resolution sang Ombudsman kay naggwa gid ang kamatuoran sang pagbinutig, pagpatalang kag tangkuloy nga alegasyon ni Christine Joy Sandoval sa akon sa pag-process niya kuno or pag-file sang papeles sa opisina namon parte sa birth certificate sang iya bana,” said Manikan in an interview over DYRI RMN Iloilo.
He clarified that, based on their official record, Sandoval never filed a petition for correction of a birth certificate, but it was his husband himself who filed it.
“Ang alegasyon niya nga nag-file sia kuno petition sa pag-correct sang birth certificate sang bana niya. But none in our records nga nag-file sia. Ang nag-file ‘ya ang iya bana. So, patalang eh, binutig. Amo na hambal ko tangkuloy nga alegasyon. Paano sia mag-file kay wala sia sang pinirmahan didto,” Manikan added.
As to the alleged money he received from Sandoval, Manikan also vehemently denied this and described this as “patalang” also.
“Ang iya alegasyon nga naghatag sia kuno sa akon P14,500 in two installments. Te didto sa hearing namon wala gani niya ma-establisyar kon sa diin kag san-o niya mahatag inang duha ka installments. Ang na-establisyar lang didto nga ang iya bana ‘ya amo ang naghatag sa iya sang P14,000. Amo to ‘ya. Waay to ‘ya ma-establish kon diin nagkadto to ang P14,500. Basi nang-ukay-ukay sia ‘ya guro,” he added.
The former City Civil Registrar believes that truth will always prevail. He is looking forward to getting justice against the baseless accusations hurled against him.
“Me, especially my wife and my son, continue to suffer the mental anguish kag mga harassment nga ginahaboy sa akon. In fact, more than two years na ako nga wala sweldo. Anyway, nagapati ako nga ang kamatuoran maggwa gid and hopefully ang justice maagum ko,” he lamented.
On the other hand, in a separate resolution dated January 18, 2021, the Ombudsman also junked the charges for violation of Section 3(h) of RA 3019, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service; Grave Misconduct; and violation of RA 6713 against Manikan, his wife Eireen, and Esteral. This time, the case was filed by Michael Cabales Soliman.
The case stemmed from an anonymous letter alleging Manikan’s involvement in registering “ante-dated” marriages in connivance with the staff of a retired judge, upon payment of a sum of money.
Soliman alleged that Manikan, through Esteral, collected the amount of P5,000 from one Jocelyn Espinosa for the processing of a certificate of live birth, wherein the said amount was more than what was required to be paid by the city government.
The complainant further accused Manikan of requiring all couples applying for marriage licenses to pay P300 up front in exchange for applicants not complying with the tree planting and marriage counsel seminar requirements.
Soliman further alleged that Manikan’s said acts were reported to the Iloilo City Government Customer Care Services, then headed by his wife Eireen, but were not acted upon at all.
In their counter-affidavit, the respondents all denied the accusations against them.
Among others, Manikan said that the complainant’s accusations were unsubstantiated, relying only on hearsay and conclusions of fact and law, which are inadmissible in evidence.
Eireen, on the other hand, denied that there was any report against her husband that she did not act upon. She also attacked the complainant’s credibility and maintained that she should not be held for trial based on the unsubstantiated accusations against her.
The anti-graft body found no probable cause.
It says that apart from the complaint’s statement/s, there is no other evidence presented to show proof of the proscribed transaction between respondents and Espinosa or by what means did the complainant come to know of such dealing.
There were also no amounts of required processing fees mentioned; no indication as to specific date/s when the subject transaction took place; and more importantly, there is lack of testimony from Espinosa herself, to bolster the fact that the alleged illicit transaction truly happened.
Furthermore, the Ombudsman said that there is a lack of showing of a complaint or report that was indeed submitted to and/or received by the office of Eireen.
“Given the paucity of probative value of the evidence on hand though, it is hardly passable to impute respondents for the offense charged. This case must thus be dismissed, alongside its administrative aspect,” the Ombudsman’s resolution read./PN
