NARVACAN, Ilocos Sur-The Office of the Ombudsman has recommended the filing of malversation of public funds and violation of section 3 (e) against former mayor Edgardo Zaragoza and his son former mayor Zuriel Zaragoza, Melody Cadacio, municipal accountant and one other after finding probable cause to charge them.
The graft cases stemmed from the complaint of Mayor Luis “Chavit” Singson, national president of the League of Municipalities of the Philippines, who accused the respondents of graft and corruption involving misappropriations of hundreds of millions of pesos from Tobacco excise tax share of Narvacan town.
“The people of Narvacan were suffering due to abuses of local officials in this town,” lamented Singson right after learning that the Ombudsman recommended the filing of malversation of public funds against the respondents.
Also charged was Mario Cabinte, education research assistant.
The respondents, however, filed a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) but the Ombudsman thru Daniel Von Evan Panelo, Graft investigator; Pilarita Lapitan, Assistant Ombudsman and Samuel Martirez, Ombudsman, denied it in their 9-page decision, a copy of which was obtained yesterday by this writer.
The complaints against other respondents, however, were dismissed by the Ombudsman. In their MR, former mayors Zuriel and Edgardo Zaragoza assailed the decision, claiming the Ombudsman erred in finding probable cause to indict them for malversation and a violation of Sec. 3 (e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 solely on the basis of the sworn statements of their co-respondent Constante A. Cabitac, president of the Narvacan federated farmers association, who had later testified against them.
In his statement given to the National Bureau of Investigation, Cabitac claimed that there was one time he was made to sign the back of a check under his name amounting to P81 million and encashed it at Land Bank, Narvacan branch.
Cabitac claimed he was accompanied by Cadacio and Cabinte in encashing the huge amount of money intended for the farmers’ organization.
After encashing the P81 million, Cabitac, as instructed, delivered the money at the house of ex mayor Edgar where then incumbent mayor Zuriel Zaragoza was waiting and received the money.
Cabitac said in his testimony that he was made to encash check more than 10 times, including P35 million.
When asked by NBI if the money intended for farmers were delivered and well spent, Cabitac said however that he cannot answer honestly because he was not shown any documents, saying “I just followed their (Zaragozas) orders being a loyal subordinate to them.”
“The mayor will just give me an amount that I could spend to buy grocery items,” Cabitac said.
Earlier, Mayor Singson formally wrote DILG secretary Eduardo Año, asking for an in-dept investigation of the annual share from excise tax of Narvacan.
In 2015 and 2016, Narvacan local officials enacted two ordinances appropriating P20 million; P7,500,000 and P177,500,000 from the town’s share in the tobacco excise tax through the Federation of tobacco farmers and Balikatan sa Kaunlaran rural improvement club.
But Singson said in his complaint that they (local officials led by Zaragoza) bloated the number of tobacco farmers’ beneficiaries to 65,000 members when the actual number of tobacco farmers was just 5,739 as certified by Constante Botacion, provincial agriculturist.
In another certification issued by Reynor Fernando, Provincial statistic officer, the total number of population in Narvacan in 2015 were just 44,006 persons.
The respondents assailed the Ombudsman decision but the Graft court denied their MR.
In his Comment/Opposition,” Singson countered that the issues raised by the respondents in their respective MRs had already been passed upon by this Office and that they were merely a rehash of their previous arguments.
Singson stressed that there was neither newly discover evidence nor any new matters raised to warrant the reversal of the assailed resolution.
Singson insisted that the Ombudsman cannot be blamed for finding probable cause since an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure conviction is not necessary in preliminary investigations.
Further, he assailed that the findings of the Office of Provincial Prosecutor are not binding upon the Office of Ombudsman because it is not a court of competent jurisdiction.
Singson added that the issues resolved by the OPP were irrelevant to the prosecution of the case for malversation and violation of Sec. 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 against the respondents.
