THE Office of the Ombudsman has junked the motion for reconsideration of Cagayan de Oro City Mayor Oscar Moreno and former city treasurer Glenn Bañez for the criminal case in connection with the settlement deal of “condiment maker” Ajinomoto Philippines.
In a 16-page order dated June 20, 2018 and penned by Assistant Ombudsman Asryman Rafanan, the ombudsman maintained its February 23 resolution indicting both Moreno and Bañez for violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019).
“Wherefore, the Motions for Reconsideration of Mayor Oscar Moreno and Glenn Bañez are denied,” part of the joint order reads.
The complaint was filed by former Taglimao village chief William Guialani which questions the court settlement, allowing Ajinomoto to pay only an amount of P300,000 to the City Government instead of the original local business tax deficiency of P2.9 million.
The ombudsman found probable cause to indict the two city officials before the anti-graft court for unlawfully entering into an agreement involving Ajinomoto’s tax liabilities in 2014.
In its February 23 resolution, the ombudsman found that Bañez issued a Notice of Assessment to Ajinomoto covering 2006 to 2012 tax deficiency of P2.9 million and in the following year, the City Government entered into a settlement agreement with waiver, release and quitclaim accepting the company’s offer of P300,000 as full settlement of its local tax deficiency.
Moreno, however, in his motion, maintained that the finding of probable cause is irregular and erroneous because it failed to consider his counter-affidavit submitted last April 2015.
Moreno also argued he did not conspire with Bañez when the later entered into a settlement agreement with Ajinomoto and that the deal does not require prior authorization from the city council pursuant to Section 22(c) of the Local Government Code.
Moreno and Bañez filed their respective motion for reconsiderations last August 1, 2016 and August 22, 2016, respectively.
However, the ombudsman finds no merit in the motions of the respondents.
“Respondents Moreno and Bañez wantonly disregarded the unequivocal provision of the law when they entered into a contract with Ajinomoto. This undermined the paramount principle of check and balance between the local chief executive and the local legislative body...,” the order said.
The ombudsman said “Banez could not have validly represented and bound the city local government without the authority of Moreno.”
The ombudsman argued that Moreno could not deny that he had knowledge of the settlement agreement.
With respect to Bañez’ manifestation, the ombudsman said it “cannot be compelled” to adopt the findings of the Court of Appeals as the matter brought to the court is administrative in nature while the matter presently under consideration is criminal (penal) in nature.
“An administrative liability is separate and distinct from the penal and civil liabilities. Thus, the dismissal of the administrative complaint does not necessarily bar the filing of a criminal prosecution for the same or similar acts, which were the subject of the administrative complaint,” the ombudsman said.
The ombudsman asserted that Bañez was in no way authorized to adjust the tax assessment after the court had acquired jurisdiction and the matter was sent to mediation.
“In sum, both respondents failed to present plausible arguments and evidence to warrant this office to reconsider its previous finding of probable cause,” the order said.
“The motions also fail to satisfy the requirements in section 27 of RA 6770 explicitly declaring that a Motion for Reconsideration of any order, directive or decision of the Office of the ombudsman may only be entertained if filed on any of the following grounds: new evidence had been discovered which materially affects the assailed order, directive or decision and errors of law or irregularities have been committed prejudicial to the interest of the movant,” it added.