CA junks ex-jail warden’s plea to stop forfeiture case

MANILA, Philippines - The Court of Appeals (CA) has given its go signal for a forfeiture case against a former jail warden who accumulated ill-gotten wealth amounting to P52.9 million.

In a 10-page decision released last week, the CA’s Seventh Division dismissed the petition of former Quezon City Jail warden Supt. Nestor Velasquez Jr. seeking to stop the Office of the Ombudsman from pursuing forfeiture proceedings against him.

In a nutshell, the CA held that it has no jurisdiction to hear and resolve Velasquez’s appeals since decisions of the ombudsman in criminal cases are unappealable.

The CA then affirmed the resolution issued by the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices on Aug. 16, 2012 recommending that a forfeiture petition be filed in court against Velasquez. 

The CA, however, said if Velasquez believes that the ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion, the remedy is a petition for certiorari filed with the Supreme Court.

“In no case… is this Court allowed to look into the criminal cases decided by the Office of the Ombudsman. Only administrative cases are appealable before us,” read the ruling penned by Associate Justice Magdangal de Leon.

Associate Justices Elihu Ybanez and Victoria Isabel Paredes concurred in this ruling.

The case against Velasquez stemmed from an anonymous complaint sent to the ombudsman in 2009 by his subordinate accusing him of corruption, grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service under the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology manual and unexplained wealth.

The complaint alleged that Velasquez coddled inmates dealing illegal drugs within the jail.

Velasquez reportedly placed the properties he acquired under the names of third persons in order to avoid declaring these in his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth.

A fact-finding team found that Velasquez amassed a net worth of P58.4 million from 1999 to 2009 when his income was only P5.4 million.

The ombudsman held that his assets were obviously disproportionate to his income, finding probable cause to order forfeiture proceedings be instituted against the jail official.