In February last year, a certain A. Robles filed the complaint with the DOJ, claiming the city’s chief prosecutor, Jose Pedrosa, and regional state prosecutor Hernando Masangkay did not conduct any investigation into the alleged bribery involving assistant prosecutors Mary Ann Castro, William Canta and Tolomeo Dinoy.
In her answer to the complaint, Castro said the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas had conducted a fact-finding investigation into the issue and eventually ruled that there was no sufficient proof to directly implicate her, Canta and Dinoy.
Meanwhile, Canta and Dinoy argued that the allegations, reportedly perpetrated by Pedro Leslie Salva, counsel of suspected Hong Kong triad member Giovanni Gimenez, was a plain counter-charge against them.
They added that it was Castro who first declared that Salva reportedly proposed to give them money sometime in December 2001. However, they reportedly told Castro not to accept Salva’s offer because it was wrong and illegal.
In his findings dated Nov. 14, 2002, former Justice Secretary Hernando Perez said there was no prima facie evidence to hold the three assistant prosecutors administratively liable for the allegations. Castro received the DOJ findings only the other day.
Perez said the DOJ "fully agrees" with the findings of the Ombudsman that there is a "dearth of evidence to directly implicate" Castro, Canta and Dinoy to the "reported solicitation of money from Atty. Salva."
However, the DOJ acceded to the Ombudsman’s recommendation that a separate administrative charge be filed against Castro for possible administrative infraction "for failure to observe… diligence, prudence and circumspection."
The Ombudsman earlier found out that Castro acceded to Salva’s request to meet with him at her residence on Dec. 16, 2001, despite her knowing that Salva is Gimenez’ counsel.
"It is apparent that Castro transgressed the standards of transparency required of her in the rendition of public service. She should have been more circumspect in her dealings with the lawyers of the accused and should have immediately declined an attempt from any one of the counsels to meet her," the DOJ said.
As regards to another bribery charge where Castro allegedly accepted P10,000 from Gines Abellana, also one of Gimenez’ lawyers, the DOJ said that except for the money that Castro turned over to Pedrosa, there was no testimonial or documentary evidence to substantiate the allegation.
Perez said it was even Castro "who cried wolf" when she leaked the supposed bribery attempt to the media, adding that she could have accepted the money and kept silent, but she opted to do the contrary.
However, because appropriate administrative charges have already been filed against Castro with the Ombudsman, the DOJ said it can no longer act on the matter in deference to the anti-graft office, which has the concurrent jurisdiction over the issue, except if the matter is referred to the DOJ for appropriate action.
Sought for comment, Castro said she is "elated" by the DOJ findings.
While the DOJ acceded to the Ombudsman’s recommendation that she be held administratively liable for allegedly agreeing to meet Salva, Castro said she is confident that she will be spared from the charges.
"The evidence I presented was not enough to convince the DOJ that it was Salva who insisted to visit my place," she said.
Granting that the Ombudsman would rule against her, Castro said she would definitely ask for reconsideration and present an affidavit that Salva executed on July 6, 2002, saying that he was the one who insisted on going to her house.
Castro said she was not able to submit Salva’s affidavit to the DOJ since it was only executed two months after she was directed to file her comment on Robles’ complaint. — Freeman News Service