|
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Ombud reinstates graft raps, orders dismissal of BIR official
By Karlon N. Rama
Sun.Star Staff Reporter
Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo has reinstated the anti-graft charges against a Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) official from Cebu and ordered the official’s dismissal from service.
The Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas released yesterday the resolution signed by Marcelo.
Director Virginia San-tiago, in a separate re-investigation report, revealed they will also be running after Revenue Officer 3 Nieto Racho’s P5.7 million alleged ill-gotten wealth deposited in three separate Cebu City banks.
The anti-graft office has also resolved to amend an existing criminal case against Racho in an attempt to indict him for falsification of public documents for trying to hide the existence of the sum.
Out of proportion
“Whenever any public officer or employee has acquired during his incumbency an amount of property which is manifestly out of proportion from his salary…, said property shall be presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired,” said Santiago in her resolution, quoting Sec. 2 of Republic Act 1379.
Racho is the former BIR District Revenue Officer in Talisay City who has been reassigned as Chief Revenue Officer of BIR Cebu City.
He was charged by the Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau of the Office of the Ombudsman Central Office in May 2003 after the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) uncovered certain properties not declared in his Statement of Assets and Liabilities (SAL).
But as early as 2001, he was already under investigation by the anti-graft office, which was probing his alleged ill-gotten wealth.
The investigation hit a snag as Racho went to the Court of Appeals (CA), which issued an injunction order. The Office of the Solicitor General contested the ruling and, in Aug. 27, 2004, won with the issuance of an order remanding the case to the anti-graft office for re-investigation.
Lifestyle check
However, as part of the investigation stemming from the PCIJ report, and while the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas’ own investigation was under restraining order, the central office’s fact-finding team conducted a lifestyle check that uncovered Racho’s:
* 1,266-square-meter property in San Isidro, Tagbilaran City, Bohol;
* Co-ownership of the Angelsons Lending and Investors Inc., which is based in Bohol and with a capital stock of P1.6 million; and
* Evidence of the existence of the three bank accounts.
The central office fact-finding team also checked his SAL that reflected a “significant increase” from P218,791 in 1991 to P1,899,758 in 2000.
Owned by family
Racho, in his counter-affidavit, denied owning the Bohol property, saying it was family-owned and now surrendered to the Tagbilaran City Government for road-right-of-way use.
He admitted being a co-owner of the lending firm, but said its working capital was only P100,000, with only P12,500 coming from his pocket. The company, he added, has since been dissolved.
He did not comment though on the “significant increase” of his net worth and on the existence of the bank accounts, saying it was the subject of a separate investigation being handled by the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas and, at that time, was still enjoined by the CA.
The fact-finding team eventually resolved to consolidate its investigation with the one the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas was conducting, though temporarily put on hold.
Affidavits
Santiago directed Racho to submit his comment to all the charges filed as soon as the CA, through the Aug. 27, 2004 order penned by Associate Justice Arsenio Magpale, finally remanded the case for re-investigation.
Racho, however, did not submit his comment but instead submitted the affidavits of his brothers Vieto and Dean, his nephew, Henry Racho, and some certificates.
In her separate re-investigation report and resolution, Santiago said that based on the joint-affidavit Racho’s brothers and nephew, the existence of the certificates of deposits and his stake in two business ventures “is duly admitted.”
Santiago added that the act of denying both in Racho’s SAL constitutes dishonesty that warrants his dismissal from service.
Also, Racho’s attempt to hide the existence of the accounts and business interests in a document sworn to be true also constitutes falsification of public documents.
With the uncovering of the P5.7 million, Racho is directed to explain why the amount “should not be declared property of the state.”
(March 15, 2005 issue)
Write letter to the editor.Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board.Click here. |
|
[return to top]
[home]
[network page]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
SUPERBALITA
WEEKEND
|
