Treñas not yet inclined to endorse charges vs. Sonalan

By Maricar M. Calubiran

The City Legal Office (CLO) has done its job, but it seems Mayor Jerry P. Treñas is not convinced.

Treñas is not inclined to immediately endorse the CLO recommendation to file  administrative and criminal charges against city lawyer Reynaldo Sonalan for failure to prosecute retired City Treasurer Romeo Manikan over violation of Anti-Power Pilferage Act.

Treñas said he will discuss the matter first with City Legal Office chief Atty. Edgar Gil and his two members Atty. Lorna Laurea and Atty. Mario Caoyonan.

The three composed the fact-finding team which recommended the filing of administrative charges for gross negligence and grave misconduct under the Revised Administrative Code as well as criminal charges under Article 209 of the Revised Penal Code against Sonalan.

Sonalan's alleged negligence caused the dismissal of the case against Manikan.
Article 209 is the betrayal of trust by an attorney or revelation of secrets. If evidence warrants, Sonalan could be removed from the government service and he may also lose all his benefits.

Treñas said he would “study slowly” the recommendation so that the people would not say he is bias in his decision regarding Sonalan’s case.

Treñas said when he was still practicing lawyer he would always carefully study all the cases he handles.

The mayor said, “let us go through with all the details of the recommendation.”
The investigation against Sonalan stemmed from his failure to present the evidences against Manikan in a case filed by the city government against the former and several others for violation of Republic Act 7832 or Anti-Pilferage Act of 1994.

Regional Trial Court Branch 39 Judge Manuel Lobaton dismissed the case against Manikan due to the failure of the prosecution to present the evidences gathered during the operation made by the Task Force Boltahe at Barangay Concepcion, City Proper. The court informed the prosecution several times to present the evidence but to no avail.

The investigating team said Sonalan did not file any opposition or comment when Manikan filed a motion to close evidence. He also failed to attend hearings conducted by the court on Manikan’s motion even if he was already notified of the schedule of the hearings.

The team further contended that Sonalan appeared as private prosecutor in the criminal case no. 04-59245 without any authority from the chief of the city legal office or from the mayor. He was only able to secure an authority to prosecute from the City Prosecution Office.

The probe team also said Sonalan did not call the witnesses to testify in court.