Monday, September 08, 2008 2 Mandaue City engineers oppose withdrawal of Asean lamps purchase case
TWO engineers accused of participating in the alleged overpricing of the Asean lampposts said, through their lawyers, that the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas committed grave abuse of discretion in investigating the controversy.
In a joint comment and opposition, Mandaue City engineers Hidelisa Latonio and Gregorio Omo said “no thanks” to the Sandiganbayan 4th Division prosecutors’ motion to withdraw the case information.
“No thanks to the Office of the Ombudsman for its motion to withdraw herein case, which is a product of a matrix of gross abuse of power and authority, irregularities and blatant violations of constitutional rights of the accused,” they stated in a 33-page opposition.
Latonio and Omo are represented by lawyers Gloria Lastimosa-Dalawmpu, Ruphil Bañoc and Gleenes Dave Rangga. Dalawampu went to Manila last Tuesday to file the comment and opposition.
Tanodbayan Merceditas Gutierrez issued an order last July 30, authorizing Deputy Special Prosecutor Robert Kallos to withdraw the case information for violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act 3019).
Gutierrez’s order stated that the withdrawal was a recommendation of the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas, “to conduct further investigation with the end in view of obtaining additional evidence in the light of the audit report” prepared by the Commission on Audit (COA).
Also facing criminal charges related to the Asean lampposts before the Sandiganbayan 4th Division are former Mandaue City mayor Thadeo Ouano, Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) 7 director Roberto Lala; assistant directors Gloria Dindin and Marlina Alvizo; division chiefs Pureza Fernandez, Augustinito Hermoso, Luis Galang, Restituto Diano and Buenaventura Pajo; and Fabmik Construction and Equipment Supply Co. Inc.’s Isabelo Braza.
But Latonio and Omo, who are also facing a criminal case before the Sandiganbayan 2nd Division, wondered why the ombudsman has not moved to withdraw the case in that division.
However, in an earlier interview, Assistant Ombudsman-Visayas Virginia Palanca-Santiago clarified that the plan to withdraw information involved all Asean lamppost cases in the different Sandigan-bayan divisions, “should the COA report show the need for a reinvestigation.”
In their comment on the motion, Latonio and Omo accused the Visayas anti-graft office of conducting a “haphazard investigation.”
They alleged that the investigation was “discriminatory” because it only involved officials in the Visayas and excluded the national DPWH officials.
Absence
The engineers called the withdrawal of information “irrelevant since the Office of the Ombudsman had ignored its absence (the absence of a COA report) despite having been invoked as material to determine overpricing.”
The engineers explained that they had previously petitioned for a temporary restraining order (TRO) of the preventive suspension ordered by the Ombudsman, citing the need for a COA report.
The ombudsman denied the petition for the TRO.
In their comment, the engineers accused the Ombudsman-Visayas of “abusing its power and authority” for allegedly failing to seek the comment of the accused during the preliminary investigation of the case.
They added that they would have filed a motion to require the Office of the Ombudsman to explain why its officials should not be declared in contempt of court.
However, the Sandiganbayan 4th Division issued an order last Aug. 22 forbidding further pleadings before it has ruled on the prosecutors’ motion to withdraw and the defense’s motion to quash.
The engineers had earlier filed a motion to quash, arguing that the facts contained in the case information did not constitute the engineers’ violation of RA 3019. (KAB)
