Cases vs Garcia, 4 others junked

CEBU, Philippines — The Office of the Ombudsman for the Visayas has dismissed the charges filed against Cebu City Mayor Raymond Alvin Garcia and other officials in connection with the complaint filed by former City Administrator Collin Rosell over his alleged unlawful arrest at the Cebu City Hall.

In a three-page decision signed by Corazon Arnado-Carillo on March 7, 2025, the Ombudsman dismissed the charges against Garcia, then Cebu City Police Office (CCPO) City Director Antonietto Cañete, Police Station 3 Commander John Lynbert Yango, Cebu City Administrator Kristine Joy Batucan, Cebu City Legal Officer Santiago Ortiz Jr., and other CCPO personnel.

The charges, according to the Ombudsman decision, are in relation to the incident last November 8, 2024 when Rosell “reported” for work, attempting to resume his post as City Administrator amidst the preventive suspension issued against him, former Cebu City mayor Michael Rama, and seven other City Hall officials. Rosell had been appointed as Cebu City Administrator on a coterminous status with Rama.

Rosell said his actions were driven by his assertion that Rama remained the city’s mayor despite the latter’s dismissal from government service by the anti-graft office following his conviction of nepotism.

Rosell maintained that Garcia’s assumption of the mayoral position was “illegal,” emphasizing that the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) did not have the authority to impose the penalty handed down to Rama. He also argued that the decision had not yet been officially served to Rama.

“The crux of the controversy involves the determination of whether the non-receipt of the DILG of the above-cited decision makes Garcia’s assumption invalid, as it allegedly impeded its execution,” an excerpt from the Ombudsman’s decision reads.

However, the Ombudsman ruled that an appeal does not stop a decision from being executory. At the time, Rama’s camp had already filed an appeal before the same office.

The Ombudsman further explained that in cases where the penalty is suspension or removal, and the respondent wins the appeal, they shall be considered as having been under preventive suspension and will be entitled to receive their salary and other benefits they were unable to collect due to the suspension or removal.

As in its previous decision, the Ombudsman upheld the provisions outlined in Republic Act No. 6770, also known as The Ombudsman Act of 1989, which mandates that the office act promptly on complaints and enforce the administrative, civil, and criminal liabilities of government officers and employees.

The Ombudsman added that it was within its prerogative to direct the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas to endorse the decision to the Human Resource Division of the Cebu City Government for immediate implementation.

“Thus, the non-endorsement of the decision to the DILG or the lack of privity in the implementation thereof does not make the decision or its implementation invalid or without force,” the Ombudsman emphasized.

It was also noted that Rosell “had no business reporting for and assuming duties as the then City Administrator.”

“It is most respectfully recommended that the instant complaint be dismissed outright for lack of palpable merit,” the Ombudsman ruled.

Despite the commotion at Cebu City Hall, Rama’s camp stood firm on his return to office, while Rosell decried his arrest as unjust and filed multiple cases against Garcia and other officials.

Rosell filed complaints for Arbitrary Detention under Article 124 of the Revised Penal Code; Unlawful Arrest under Article 269; Tumultuous Disturbance under Article 153; Physical Injuries under Article 266; Grave Threats under Article 282; Grave Coercion under Article 286; and Malicious Mischief under Article 327.

They also filed complaints for Violation of Republic Act No. 11983, or the New Philippine Passport Act; Violation of Republic Act No. 8484, as amended by Republic Act No. 11449, or the Access Device Regulation Act of 1998; Violation of Section 10 of Republic Act No. 7610, or the Anti-Child Abuse Act; Grave Misconduct; Gross Neglect of Duty; and Grave Abuse of Authority (with Prayer for Damages and Issuance of a Preventive Suspension Order).

Rosell explained that the inclusion of child abuse charges stemmed from his role as a provider for five minors, as well as for five others who are now in college.(CEBU NEWS)