THE Supreme Court has dismissed a petition filed by three police officials seeking the reversal of resolutions issued by the Office of the Ombudsman which found probable cause to file graft and malversation through falsification of public documents charges against them.
The cases stemmed from the P409.7 million alleged “ghost repairs” of 28 light armored vehicles (LAVs) used by the Special Action Force (SAF) and the Regional Mobile Group of the Philippine National Police (RMG-PNP).
In a 25-page decision written by Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando, the SC’s First Division held that there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman in finding probable cause to charge petitioners Rainier Espina, Henry Duque and Eulito Fuentes before the Sandiganbayan.
In particular, the Ombudsman accused Duque, a member of the PNP-Logistics Support Service, of signing the bidding documents forthe procurement of tires, repowering, refurbishing and repair of the V-150 LAVs, making it appear a public bidding was conducted although there was none, thereby recommending the award of contracts which are grossly disadvantageous to the PNP.
On the other hand, Fuentes, a supply accountable officer of the LSS, was accused of accepting the purported equipment and materials, and certifying that they were received in good order and condition.
For his part, Espina, a former acting chief of the Management Division, was accused of processing payments for the bidders without exercising due diligence to ensure that the procedures in the procurements were faithfully observed.
The SC resolved to affirm the Ombudsman’s resolution issued on December 27, 2012, joint resolution issued January 18, 2013 and another resolution issued July 8, 2013.
The high court rejected the petitioners’ claim that their right to due process was violated by the Ombudsman in issuing the resolutions.
Duque asserted that he was denied due process since he was deprived of his right to file a counter-affidavit during preliminary investigation. But the SC stressed that defects in procedural due process during preliminary investigation may be cured by the filing of a motion for reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.
The SC gave weight to the claim of the Office of the Solicitor-General (OSG) that Duque was afforded due process because he was given the chance to be heard in a motion for reconsideration when he filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for Reinvestigation dated February 4, 2013.
“Thus, where a party has been given a chance to be heard during preliminary investigation with respect to the latter’s motion for reconsideration, and the defenses raised in his motion for reconsideration are adequately considered and acted upon by the Office of the Ombudsman, there is sufficient compliance with the requirements of due process,” the SC said.
Fuentes likewise asserted that he was denied due process when the Ombudsman denied his request for forensic examination to establish forgery of his signatures.
However, the SC stressed that the findings of forgery during preliminary investigation should be ventilated in a full-blown trial, because the duty to determine the authenticity of a signature rests on the judge who is mandated to conduct an independent examination of the signature in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to its authenticity.
“Thus, while Fuentes should rightfully be given the opportunity to substantiate his defense of forgery, the best avenue for him to assail the genuineness of the signatures in the purported documents is during
his tum to present evidence in court, where there is an opportunity for the presentation and cross examination of an expert witness and an independent examination by the judge on the veracity of the purported signatures,” the Court pointed out.
Espina, on the other hand, claimed that his right to due process was violated since one of the acts imputed against him is his supposed signature in the pre/post inspection reports relating to work orders
for the repairs and refurbishment of the V-150s which were attached as annexes of a Commission on Audit report (COA) .
Espina alleged that the COA report and its annexes were purportedly only referenced as a footnote in the joint resolution, and that he was never furnished a copy of the COA report .
But the SC noted that based on the records Espina had a copy of the pre/post inspection reports containing his signature, which he attached in one of his motions.“Verily, Espina was accorded the opportunity to be heard and intelligently address the charges against him in relation to the requests for pre/post-inspection reports containing his signature,”the SC ruled.