Labella denies hand in Dodgers case vs Osmeña

CEBU, Philippines - Cebu City Vice Mayor Edgardo Labella yesterday denied Mayor Tomas Osmeña’s allegation that he used his connection at the Office of the Ombudsman to upgrade Osmeña’s graft case involving Dodge Charger cars reportedly donated to the city.

In his official Facebook account, Osmeña said he was happy that due process was observed after the central office of the anti-graft office did not let Labella’s “influence” prevail.

Labella was the director of the Office of the Ombudsman for Visayas for several years before he was elected as councilor and as vice mayor of Cebu City.

“I take a strong exception to the statement of the mayor associating me as responsible of upgrading the complaint of (former) mayor Mike Rama into criminal and administrative because of my alleged connections with the office of the Ombudsman,” Labella said.

“In fact, the case was dismissed. I think it negates the statement itself that I have strong connection,” he added.

Recently, the central office of the Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the administrative and criminal complaints filed by Rama against Osmeña for lack of probable cause and lack of substantial evidence.

In 2015, the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas upgraded its investigation into the case, saying there were enough reasons to probe Osmeña who allegedly privately used the controversial Dodge Charger cars donated to the city government.

Rama accused Osmeña of violating Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act when he accepted two US-made Dodge Charger cars donated by businessman Michael Gleissner, chairman of Bigfoot Entertainment, during Osmeña’s term as mayor.

Rama, who was in Manila yesterday, declined to comment on the development.

Labella said Osmeña’s allegation was not fair to the Ombudsman because it is an “independent constitutional body.”

“Most of the investigators under me when I was the director of the Office of the Ombudsman for Visayas are now RTC judges.  It is not fair on my part, because during my stint as director, no one can ever point at me as having dictated on them to decide the case in one way or another,” he said.

“How much more when I am no longer connected with the Ombudsman? How can I influence the office?” he added.

Labella reminded all public officials not to make any speculation on the circumstances on the dismissal of the case, especially on why it took so long for the anti-graft office to resolve it.

“As a lawyer, I know that making baseless insinuations is violative of a law which is still very effective until now. And that law is Presidential Decree No. 90 which is the Anti Rumor-Mongering Law,” he said.

If the offender of that law is a public official of government, he said it is an aggravating circumstance, which means the penalty is higher.

He then begged off from giving his comment on the merits of the Dodgers case, saying it is not fair for the anti-graft office and for both parties concerned.

But he hinted that Rama, who is the original complainant of the case, can still ask for review mechanism on the ruling of the central office through a motion for reconsideration.

Labella did not categorically say he will sue Osmeña if the mayor will continuously “insinuate” that he influenced the Office of the Ombudsman for the Visayas when it upgraded the case.

Osmeña, meanwhile, did not grant press conference yesterday since he had several appointments. (FREEMAN)