Ombudsman clears E.B. Magalona mayor and officials of graft raps

By Dolly Yasa

BACOLOD CITY – The Office of the Ombudsman has cleared E.B. Magalona Mayor Marvin Malacon and eight other town officials of graft charges filed by a former vice mayor for lack of probable cause and substantial evidence.

Malacon, along with Municipal Treasurer Riza Gumban Diaz, Municipal Budget Officer Jessilyn Castillo Plaza, town councilors Joey Hechnova, Reylan Villarias Gamboa, Isidro Sellado Gomed, Eric Dequina Matulac, Gelita Singuay Parcon, Jovie Marcial Madayag, and Punong Barangay of Tanza, Leah Beri, were accused of violating Republic Act 3019 Section 3, illegal use of public funds and property, and violating Republic Act 6713 for dishonesty, grave abuse of authority, and grave misconduct by former Vice Mayor Robert Fermin Acaling in April 2018.

The respondents were charged with criminal and administrative cases for allegedly conspiring to endorse a resolution granting the municipal mayor the authority to sign a memorandum of agreement without adequate deliberation or discussion, according to a decision copy furnished to reporters Monday afternoon during a press conference held by the mayor in E.B. Magalona town.

Acaling claimed that the respondents subsequently disbursed public funds, in the form of financial assistance to 23 barangays, including Barangay Tanza, without the existence of any appropriate ordinance.

The document further stated that Malacon designated the P300,000 financial assistance from the Municipality of E.B. Magalona to its 23 barangays intended for flood control projects, reforestation projects, and road rehabilitation development projects.

It further said that Malacon convened a special session urging the Sangguniang Bayan to authorize him to sign the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for the allocation of these funds.

In response, the SB conducted a special session and approved the resolution according to Malacon’s request in April 2018.

Acaling raised concerns about the regularity of the special session and the approval of the resolution, claiming that it lacked a valid reason to convene a special session and contending that it was intentionally scheduled during his absence due to sick leave.

He also argued that there was no proper appropriation to justify the disbursement of these funds.

The respondents denied the complainant’s allegations and insisted on the legality of the special session, citing that Malacon, as the local chief executive, has the authority to call for a special session when public interest so demands, adding that the absence of the vice mayor does not bar the mayor from calling for a special session.

The Ombudsman noted in its decision that on October 26, 2018, the complainant submitted an affidavit of desistance, claiming that after evaluating the facts and evidence in his possession, he was no longer interested in pursuing the cases filed against the respondents.

In its decision, the Ombudsman said that initially its office is not compelled to dismiss a case solely based on the submission of the complainant’s affidavit of desistance as it can be potentially influenced by monetary considerations or undue pressure.

“As the guardian of public interest, the Ombudsman is obligated to examine the substance of the case, irrespective of any attempt by the complainant to withdraw or recant,” it pointed out.

The decision further stated that “following a thorough examination of the case records, however, this Office concludes that the available evidence is insufficient to establish criminal and administrative liability against the respondents.”

It further said that “the evidence available does not sufficiently support finding a probable cause for violation of Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code and Section 3 (e) of RA 3019.

Consequently, the corresponding administrative complaint for dishonesty, grave abuse of authority, grave misconduct, and violation of RA 6713, which hinges on the same criminal charges, must be deemed unfounded.”

The decision was signed by Ombudsman Samuel Martires.

With this, it also issued a clearance to all the accused that they have no pending criminal and administrative cases with the said office, dated June 19, 2024, copies of which were also furnished to the media.

Malacon said that he and the others cleared by the Ombudsman are planning to file countercharges against Acaling and those who stood as his witnesses.

“This will become a precedent, so we hope this will serve as a lesson to those who file charges intended to harass public officials who work for the good of the many,” he pointed out.