FOR insufficiency and lack of evidence, the Sangguninag Panlalawigan Committee on Good Government, Justice and Human Rights dismissed the administrative case for graft and corruption filed against a town councilor in Jagna town.
The administrative case filed against former Councilor Maricris Jamora, arrived at the Sangguniang Panlalawigan as indorsed by the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas to Vice Governor Victor Dionisio Balite for resolution.
The case stemmed from a letter complaint to the Ombudsman by Arnulfo Lagare Jr., which alleged that in 2018, as the town distributed hams to Jagna LGU employees, the said hams were to be claimed at the local Pampanga’s Best Products Outlet, owned by Jamora.
Lagare also alleged that the procurement was irregular and that the funds used to pay for the ham was realigned from another activity.
The complainant also alleged that Jamora benefitted from the illegal transaction.
The indorsed complaints also got attached affidavits of witnesses claiming that the ham were claimed at the store after presenting claim stubs, further stating that the LGU does not own a freezer to keep the hams from spoiling.
In her answer to the complaint, Jamora said the complainant did not present any direct evidence that she committed acts in violation of RA 3019.
She added that the documents attached to the complaints do not directly involve her, contain her name or her signature, further alleging that her family does not own the store Pampanga’s Best.
Jamora claimed that she only responded in good faith to the LGU need to preserve the ham for distribution to the employees.
Having weighed on the facts and the available witness affidavits, the SP Committee led by lawyers Venzencio Arcamo, Jiselle Rae Villamor and Tomas Abapo, Jr., agreed that the case filed against Jamora does not have a leg to stand on.
Looking at the affidavits of witnesses and documents submitted by the complainant, there is nothing that would show that the respondent is guilty of violating any of the provisions of R.A. 3019, the SP committee bared.
As to the contention that the respondent benefited from the program, the committee saw that, there is proof that she benefitted from storing and releasing the ham to the employees upon presentation of their claim stubs.
“There was no showing of any payment needed to be made for claiming the ham, in fact the on that benefitted was LGU Jagna for getting the service of the facility to store the ham to be given away to the employees, according to the SP committee reviewing the case.
“It must also be noted that the complainant did not even show any proof of any involvement or participation of the respondent in the purchase of the ham products, complainant merely alleged that the store Pampanga’s Best was owned by the family of the respondent but there was no proof that Pampanga’s Best was the store where the LGU procured the ham, the reports summed.
Moreover, the complainant also did not show in the documents that the respondent owns Pampanga’s Best, that document shown did not contain any of the respondent’s name, or whatever it is that she benefitted from the storage and handling of the ham.
The act of the respondent is clearly one without malicious intent but instead an act of charity which will benefit not only the LGU of Jagna but also the employees who would prefer to claim their ham on a date or time which is most comfortable to them.
With this, the Committee recommends to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency and lack of evidence. (PIA-7/Bohol)
