BACOLOD City – The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the graft complaints filed against Mayor Evelio Leonardia and two former city government employees.
These were “bereft of substantial evidence”, according to Ombudsman Samuel Martires in a ruling issued on Feb. 8 yet but was made known to the press only much later.
Leonardia was accused of malversation of public funds and violation of Section 3 (e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act relative to the city government’s gasoline procurement in 2007.
The two other respondents were Eduardo Ravena, then officer-in-charge (OIC) City Accountant; and Ricardo Dahildahil, then OIC of the Management and Audit Services Office.
The charges were filed in October 2016 based on the allegations of city residents Armando Collado and Christopher Villeta.
The Ombudsman dismissed the charges after resolving two separate Motions for Reconsideration (MRs) of Leonardia and Ravena against a previous finding of probable cause against them.
In its Order, the Ombudsman said: “Verily, the fact that the fuel paid for by the city were actually used for the purposes they were intended negates any finding that respondents Leonardia, Ravena and Dahildahil acted out of any furtive design or intent to cause damage to the government.”
The Ombudsman also ruled that there was no indication that Leonardia, Ravena and Dahildahil acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence in procuring the fuel.
“In sum, the records of the instant case are bereft of substantial evidence to establish that Respondents Leonardia, Ravena and Dahildahil committed the crimes charged against them,” the Ombudsman stressed.
Leonardia welcomed the decision.
“We thank God for vindicating us from this malicious complaint filed by people whom we know are close allies of our political opponents. Public service is no joke really. There are hazards to the job you just have to bear,” said Leonardia.
Leonardia and Ravena argued that the petroleum products paid for way back in 2007 were constructively delivered to the city by way of “constitutum possessorium”.
This is a form of delivery that made the gasoline stations concerned serve as temporary storage and safekeepers of the fuel stocks paid for and already owned by the city government, they added.
This system was resorted to because the city government has no fuel depot to safely store the fuel supplies bought, and also for administrative efficiency, they further cited.
The respondents further argued that the legal basis used in the previous finding of probable cause “had no bearing” on the case because such was meant to govern procurements solely from wholesalers of petroleum products, while the case at hand involved procuring from gasoline stations selling on retail – an entirely different milieu.
Leonardia said it should be noted further that the heads of the end-user offices that actually withdrew and used the fuel stocks allocated for their operating needs, and who were his co-respondents in this case, were already earlier freed therefrom by the Ombudsman while he and Ravena had to defend themselves further by filing their separate MRs./PN
