Ombuds clears Sellon, 2 others of admin raps

CEBU, Philippines - The Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas has dismissed the administrative complaint filed against Cebu City Prosecutor Nicolas Sellon and two of his assistants for lack of evidence and jurisdiction.

Graft investigation and prosecution officer Mona Chica Cabanes-Gillamac said that the complaint against Sellon, assistant city prosecutors Victor Laborte and Oscar Capacio was based on an alleged “incorrect” resolution of a falsification case against the complainant.

“As correctly stated by the respondents, the present complaint actually questions the correctness of the findings of the Cebu City Prosecutor’s Office which is not within the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman as this properly lies within the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor by way of an appeal,” the anti-graft office ruled.

According to Gillamac, the Ombudsman has no authority to review the findings of the Office of the Prosecutor.

Emmanuel Quinan Jr. filed the complaint against Sellon, Laborte, and Capacio for alleged gross neglect of duty and/or grave abuse of authority for allegedly resolving the complaint for falsification filed against him for 14 months without justifiable reason.

The complaint against Quinan was in March 2006 and was resolved only in May 2007. Quinan said that not only that the resolution was delayed, the respondents also rendered an “unjust resolution” by recommending the filing of falsification case against him before the trial court despite the “lack of evidence.”

Laborte, who was the investigating prosecutor, said he found probable cause to indict Quinan of falsification based on the complaint filed by Cesar Bitong.

According to Laborte, the complainant lied in his claim that it took them 14 months to resolve the case. Laborte said he received the files in March 2006 and came up a resolution in June 2006.

Capacio, who is the reviewing officer, denied the allegations. He said he received the resolution on June 16, 2006 for review and submitted it for approval after 14 days.

Sellon assailed the authority of the anti-graft office over the complaint.

“If this Office declares said resolution to be erroneous it would be acting beyond its authority because it has no jurisdiction to review the finding of the City Prosecutor,” Sellon pointed out in his counter-affidavit.

Sellon said the complainant should have filed a motion for reconsideration of their resolution instead of filing the complaint against them before the Ombudsman. (FREEMAN)