Ombud drops plaint vs DILG employee

CEBU, Philippines - Citing insufficiency of evidence, the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas has dismissed the criminal complaint against an employee of the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) of Toledo City.

Graft investigator Maria Corazon Vergara-Naraja cleared Gloria Pacampara,

city local government operations officer, who was earlier charged for violation of Section 3(f) of Republic Act 3019 or Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

“This office finds the elements of Section 3 (f) of RA 3019, as amended, lacking in the evidence presented by the complainant to warrant an indictment against respondent Pacampara,” the resolution reads.

Naraja added that the failure of the respondent in furnishing a copy of the certificate of assumption to duty of Edgardo Aguilar as barangay captain of Bunga, Toledo City, to Samuel Cuico was not a violation.

Cuico, a resident of Barangay Bunga, filed the complaint. He alleged that respondent violated the anti-graft case because of her failure to provide him the copy of the requested document.

On January 10, 2012, he said he wrote a letter to respondent requesting for several documents including the certificate of assumption to duty of Aguilar. However, respondent failed to furnish him a copy.

He added he went to DILG, Toledo City, to ask for a copy but he was told by the respondent to file a case against Aguilar. Cuico said it was only on January 18, 2012, that the respondent told him she cannot give him a copy of Aguilar’s certificate of assumption.

This prompted him to file a complaint.

In her counter-affidavit, respondent claimed that she furnished respondent a copy of the requested documents the day after she received the letter except for a certificate of assumption.

She explained that she cannot furnish him a copy of the said document yet because she has to wait for a copy of Aguilar’s Oath of Office which the Committee on Credentials of the Liga ng mga Barangay kept during the conduct of the Liga Elections.

The Oath of Office is necessary for the issuance of the certificate of assumption to determine the exact date that Aguilar assumed as barangay captain.

After receiving Aguilar’s Oath of Office on February 13, 2012, Pacampara said she immediately prepared the certificate of assumption but complainant “no longer came back.”

She said the complainant never asked her the reason of her failure to issue a certificate of assumption.

In her ruling, Naraja said it was evident that respondent did comply with the request of the complainant but failed to issue a certificate of assumption because of the non-availability of the copy of the Oath of Office of Aguilar.

Naraja added that based on the arguments of respondent, she found that the latter “sufficiently explained” her failure to issue the said certificate.

“This Office finds no evidence showing that respondent’s failure to act was for the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly, from any person interested in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or advantage in favor of an interested party, or discriminating against another,” the resolution reads.— MIT (FREEMAN)