Nepotism case vs Bayron revived
A certain Aldrin Madreo, the main complainant in the cases against the Bayrons, filed a four-page omnibus motion to re-tackle these cases which were first lodged with the Ombudsman in November 2013
A slew of cases from nepotism, falsification of public documents, perjury, and violation of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act that had been pending before the Office of the Ombudsman for seven years were revived against Puerto Princesa City Mayor Lucilo Bayron and his son Karl.
A certain Aldrin Madreo, the main complainant in the cases against the Bayrons, filed a four-page omnibus motion to re-tackle these cases which were first lodged with the Ombudsman in November 2013.
Madreo, in his prayer, requested the Ombudsman to initiate the appropriate criminal action and file the compounding information against Bayron to charge him for falsification of a public document which was related to appointing his son Karl as project manager of Bantay Puerto-VIP Security Task Force on 1 July 2013 while he was already mayor of the city.
The complaint alleged that the document did not appear to show the relationship between the two Bayrons under oath despite the elder Bayron supposed to have declared this kinship.
Bayron defended this and said that his signature on Karl’s employment contract, which did not identify their relationship, was a mere case of oversight.
However, the Bayrons were dismissed from service following the Ombudsman’s dismissal order issued by the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) in February 2017. The elder Bayron was reinstated as mayor in June that same year.
Based on records, the Ombudsman issued an order on 6 July 2017 granting Madreo’s motion for reconsideration to find probable cause to indict Bayron and his son for falsification of documents.
Madreo’s legal counsel Karl Daniel Buban from the Belgica Aranas Baldueza de la Cruz & Associates law firm said that in effect, the Ombudsman’s order on 6 July 2017 which “undoubtedly disregarded the assailed joint order dated 20 March 2017, the initial findings of the Ombudsman on 18 November 2016 against respondents from the commission of falsification of public documents now stands.”
Buban said that the Ombudsman had now adequate reason to institute the appropriate criminal actions and initiate the filing of the corresponding information against Bayron as part of the investigative power of the Ombudsman under the 1987 Constitution.