Complaint vs LTFRB officers dismissed

CEBU, Philippines - For insufficiency of evidence, the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas dismissed the complaint filed against officers of the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) for alleged dishonesty and falsification of documents.

Cleared from charges are LTFRB-7 Director Romulo Bernardes and acting Records Officer Reynaldo Elnar.

Still, the anti-graft office “admonished” the two and told them to be more careful in discharging their respective functions to avoid wrong perception from the public.

In his complaint, taxi operator Mayo Perez had alleged the respondents had furnished him a copy of certification of a list of Certificates of Public Convenience (CPC) under taxi aircon denomination, which allegedly had an expired case number.

LTFRB had issued Memorandum Circular 2009-035 purposely to provide for appropriation of 200 taxi franchises which have been declared abandoned or cancelled by the agency.

Perez alleged respondents have been selling franchise no. 04-1977 even before the list was issued.

Bernardes and Elnar denied the allegations.

Bernardes said his function is to notify the certification Elnar issues and that it is the latter who is in the best position know the specific details of the CPC.

He also denied selling the CPC to Perez and the alleged conspiracy between him and Elnar. He argued that Perez could not show proof as to the truthfulness of such act.

Elnar said the certification on the CPC under taxi denomination he issued was in compliance with Memorandum Circular 2009-035.

He said the CPC he issued to Perez was not expired and that he was able to issue another certification to replace the list of CPCs alleged to be expired. 

Elnar said there was nothing in Perez’ affidavit shows that they committed falsification as some errors were properly corrected.

Graft investigator Jane Aguilar ruled that the alleged false entries made in the certification prepared by Elnar and noted by Bernardes do not constitute falsification as there is no showing that the same was made with malice or deliberate intent.

“Elnar was able to satisfactorily explain why the CPC issued to Holiday Taxi with Case No. 04-1977 which was not abandoned was included in the first certification that he issued,” the decision reads.

She likewise ruled that the alleged selling of CPC to somebody was a mere hearsay.

 “We agree with the respondents that complainant had not presented proof to substantiate it; thus, the same is mere hearsay,” she ruled.

Aguilar defined hearsay evidence as a kind of evidence, whether objected to or not, that has no probative value unless the proponent can show that the evidence falls within the exceptions to the hearsay evidence rule. — (FREEMAN)