CEBU, Philippines - The Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas dismissed the criminal and administrative complaints against a police officer and a barangay captain from the Municipality of Dalaguete for lack of merit.
The instant motion for reconsideration of the joint evaluation report dated August 30, 2007 filed by complainants Jose and Vicente Leornas was denied by the Ombudsman.
The complainants filed a complaint for falsification of public document and violation of Section 3 of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act against SPO2 Francisco Leornas and former barangay captain Aurelio Aliñabon of Barangay Tapon.
The complainants alleged that on June 25, 2004, Aliñabon issued a certification stating that there were no claims or conflict with respect to a certain lot, even if Aliñabon conducted hearings concerning claims to the subject land.
They also mentioned that SPO2 Leornas applied for a free patent the following year and was ultimately issued an Original Certificate of Title even if he knew that the parcel of land was registered in the name of Furtunato Leornas.
Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer II Vicente Roble Jr. in the said report states that it was the ministerial duty of Aliñabon to issue the Barangay Clearance.
From June 9 to 24, 2004 Roble said that the office of the Barangay Captain of Tapon posted the Notice of Application for Free Patent of SPO2 Leornas to give notice to other claimants of the lot to enable them to file their claim.
It was noted that SPO2 Leornas was in possession of the subject parcel of land and there was no indication that a civil case had been filed against him.
The complainants in a motion dated November 24, 2007, said they filed a verified petition to annul the Original Certificate of Title issued to SPO2 Leornas. According to them, they were not able to file their claim during the period June 9-24, 2004 because Jose was very sick at that time while Vicente was still verifying the status of the property and was confused on what to do.
Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer I Maria Corazon Vergara-Naraja said that the instant motion for reconsideration filed by the complainants did not present new evidence. They also did not point out any errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to their interest.
According to Naraja, the alleged falsification of the affidavit for application of free patent supposedly committed by SPO2 Leornas is a novel issue introduced by the complainants only in their motion for reconsideration.
She said that the complaint filed on May 9, 2007 never mentioned of such falsification committed by SPO2 Leornas.
Naraja said that the complainants did not attach the said falsified affidavit in their complaint nor in their motion for reconsideration.
Naraja stated that the complainants failed to indicate in their motion the final outcome of the said case that could have been helpful to determine if SPO2 Leornas indeed resorted to falsification to obtain an original certificate of title, which could be subject of a separate complaint. — THE FREEMAN