Balili controversy: Graft case vs. Gwen upheld

MANILA, Philippines - The troubles of suspended Governor Gwendolyn Garcia seem to be piling up.

Still fighting a six-month suspension order, Garcia was dealt another blow after Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales upheld the anti-graft agency’s decision to indict the suspended governor for graft and technical malversation of public funds before the Sandiganbayan.

She also junked the appeals filed by Provincial Board member Juan Bolo, Budget Officer Emme Gingoyon, Appraisal Committee chairman and Provincial Assessor Anthony Sususco, Treasurer Roy Salubre, Provincial Engineer Eulogio Pelayre and private respondents Romeo and Amparo Balili.

The criminal cases against Garcia stem from the alleged anomalous purchase of a 24.7-hectare property worth over P98 million for a housing project in Barangay Tinaan, Naga City, in 2008.

“Without doubt, the purchase of the Balili properties is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government… given that the substantial portion thereof is submerged in seawater and cannot be utilized for the province’s housing program,” the Office of the Ombudsman said in its latest ruling.

Ombudsman Morales denied the motions for reconsideration filed by Garcia and her co-accused for lack of merit with prosecutors informing the Sandiganbayan of the ruling.

The anti-graft court’s Second Division chaired by Associate Justice Teresita V. Diaz-Baldos earlier denied the suspended governor’s request that the hold departure order issued against her be lifted pending the resolution of his appeal.

In its latest decision to have Garcia undergo trial, the Office of the Ombudsman said there was unlawful diversion of more than P49.8 million in public money from the Social Services budget of the province since there was no appropriation for such a land acquisition.

The anti-graft agency’s 21-page ruling said an admission by defendant Romeo Balili that no survey was conducted before the signing of the Memorandum of Agreement for the sale of the property and Bolo’s statement that he “informed Garcia twice that the estate is adjacent to the sea” is evidence against the accused.

“Such admission bolster this Office’s finding that the parties, most especially Garcia, had acted with gross inexcusable negligence in the purchase of the estate,” the Office of the Ombudsman said.

“All the other grounds raised in respondent-movants’ motion for reconsideration merit no consideration as they are merely repetitions of the matters that have already been dwelt on in the assailed issuances,” the decision added.

Meanwhile, Atty. Tranquil Salvador III, lead counsel of Garcia, said that they have not received any decision from the Ombudsman on the Balili case.

Salvador said that they have yet to receive the resolution from the Ombudsman but said that if indeed the report is true, they will be ready to act on it.  —/BRP (FREEMAN)