CEBU, Philippines - For the failure of the complainant to substantiate her allegation, the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas cleared Philippine Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) officials for misconduct.
Graft investigator Eleanor Tayad-De Mira said complainant Shandrina Aliser failed to present evidence to hold the respondents guilty of the crime charged.
“Charges were based on mere suspicion and speculation…The facts and circumstances presented by complainant are very much wanting so as to hold respondents liable for misconduct,” the decision reads.
Cleared were PAGCOR casino slot machine area head Noel Garcia, slot machine supervisor Danilo Lipura, slot machine operations supervisor Ricardo De Dios and junior closed camera television operator Mark Raymund Andrade.
In the complaint filed by Aliser, she said that on June 22, 2010 at around 2:33 p.m. she was in a hotel playing slot machine when it suddenly stopped with the word jackpot appearing in her screen.
“The writing on the jackpot screen where the progressive form of the winning categories was listed was erased,” she said, adding that Lipura requested her to approach the teller who then gave her P58,503.
However, she said she realized when she went home that her winnings should have been P585,030 since she hit the jackpot and not P58,503.
Aliser said she went to the casino and requested the personnel to open the slot machine to verify whether she won P58,503 or P585,030 but they refused.
She was told by the respondents that her slot machine cannot be opened since the record of her winnings would have already been lost after 20 games.
She argued that the slot machine was not able to register the zeros.
Aliser said she sought the help of Fuente Police and the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)-7. She said when the NBI requested certain documents from PAGCOR, the latter denied so she asked the help of the Ombudsman. In their counter-affidavits, the respondents denied the allegations.
Garcia said the complainant only won Popular 1 where the prize ranged from P50,000 to 75,000. He said he explained this to the complainant but she refused to listen.
De Dios and Lipura corroborated the testimony of Garcia. For his part, Andrade said he has no knowledge as to the circumstances of the complainant’s winnings and he was surprised when he was implicated in the complaint. De Mira stated in her decision that the complainant failed to present evidence.
“An evaluation of the records of the case would readily show that the complaint was based merely on complainant’s belief or speculation without even the slightest proof to show how her winning had been manipulated by respondents,” the decision reads. — (FREEMAN)