The Court of Appeals has sustained the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman holding former Special State Prosecutor Wendell Barreras-Sulit administratively liable for her failure to conclude the reinvestigation of a criminal case filed before her within a reasonable time.
In a decision, the CA’s Special 10th Division Associate Justice Florito Macalino denied Sulit’s petition as it affirmed the Ombudsman decision dated Oct. 8, 2014.
The appellate court held that the Ombudsman rendered the right decision against Sulit.
“The Office of the Ombudsman did not act with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in rendering the assailed decision finding petitioner guilty of simple neglect of duty,” the CA declared.
“Having said that, we do not find necessity to still discuss the other issues raised in this petition,” the court stressed.
Associate Justices Priscilla Baltazar-Padilla and Nina Antonino-Valenzuela concurred with the ruling.
The controversy arose from the dismissal of the graft charges against former Manila mayor Gemiliano “Mel” Lopez, Jr. before the Sandiganbayan.
The Fact-Finding and Investigation Bureau created a panel of investigators to look into the circumstances surrounding the matter.
It was learned that Sulit started handling Lopez’ case on October 8, 1997 but purportedly failed to reinvestigate it, despite the pending order of reinvestigation, causing the dismissal of the case.
The anti-graft body pointed out that Sulit’s failure to conclude the reinvestigation within a reasonable period prompted the Sandiganbayan Third Division to dismiss the case on constitutional grounds and recommended that disciplinary action be initiated against her and another state prosecutor, Special Prosecution Officer II Leonard Tamayo.
The Ombudsman’s Board found Sulit guilty of simple neglect of duty and he was penalized with a fine equivalent to one month’s salary, payable to the anti-graft office, prompting her to elevate the case to the appellate court.
