Ombudsman denies ex-mayor's plea on graft raps
BACOLOD CITY -- The Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by former Bacolod City Mayor Luzviminda Valdez and nine others in connection with the case of Malversation of Public Funds through falsification of public documents lodged by the late city legal officer Atty. Allan Zamora.
Earlier, the Office of the Ombudsman has found a probable cause for the complaint which stemmed from an alleged overpayment of claims for reimbursement of former city executive assistant Susan Robles amounting to P99,866.25, as per report of the Commission on Audit (COA).
Based on the findings, the city government during the incumbency of former Mayor Valdez paid Robles P100,000 when the cash slip was only P133.75, which was used to buy a piece of bread.
Former Mayor Valdez then refuted the charge, saying that the 133.75 was merely part of several receipts which totaled to P100,000. Just recently, Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer II Jane Aguilar issued an order denying the motion for reconsideration filed by the respondent.
Other respondents to the case are Robles, former Secretary to the Mayor Brendo Elegio, former City Accountant Pioquito Quinones, executive assistant Renato Rojo, acting Management Service Office chief Ricardo Dahidahil Jr., former City Administrator Andrea Si, Assistant City Treasurer Lilia Ursos and cooperative and livelihood development project officer Leo Villanueva.
The motion for reconsideration asserted that there was no proof of conspiracy and hence the respondents should be adjudged on the basis of their own individual act with regard to those of the others.
However, the Ombudsman justified that conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence of the acts charged. “This case presents a conspiracy of silence and inaction where public officials who should have been vigilant to protect the interest of the Government, accepted as gospel truth the certifications of the other officials or employees and approved without question the transaction,” it added.
The Ombudsman denied the motion since the respondents did not introduce new evidence that could adversely affect their previous findings.