Noverases appeal dismissal order
THE Office of the Ombudsman has issued a dismissal order against thenAurora governor Gerardo Noveras and vice governor Christian Noveras even though the complainant lacked evidence to support his conspiracy allegations against the fatherand-son tandem and their co-respondents.
This was the claim of the Noverases, who filed an appeal as they questioned the 28-page order which Ombudsman Samuel Martires approved on Feb. 21, 2024.
The anti-graft office found the Noverases and Michael Tecuico, a casual employee, guilty of grave misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and conduct unbecoming of a public official.
The three were meted the penalty of dismissal from the service despite the “insufficient direct evidence” to pin them down, Noveras said in a counter affidavit.
But the Ombudsman, which released the order on April 5, sided with the complainant Narciso Amansec, a resident, and wrote: “While there may be insufficient direct evidence of their agreement, their conspiracy is implied, as shown by their common objective of printing campaign tarpaulins to further the massive election propaganda of the Noveras and allies.”
Martires affirmed the Dec. 12, 2023 decision which was signed by Leilani Tagulao-Marquez, graft investigation and prosecution officer.
The acting governor, Reynante Tolentino, was installed on April 22, 2024 since the Ombudsman decision was served already as of that date.
The complaint was filed by Amansec on April 22, 2022, and it stemmed from the incident that happened earlier on March 30, 2022 inside the ATC compound involving the alleged printing of election campaign materials/tarpaulin of the Noverases who were then running for governor and vice governor.
Amansec accused the Noverases, Tecuico and two other officials of having conspired together to print tarpaulins.
However, Amansec failed to present evidence or proof that the Noverases ordered Tecuico before or during the time that he (Tecuico) allegedly printed election materials, nor failed to present proof thereafter that the father and son have knowledge of the alleged illegal printing, they said in a counter affidavit.
Amansec insisted that since Tecuico was a casual employee of the province, he was compelled by Gerardo Noveras to print the election materials.
Also implicated in the alleged conspiracy were Joel Friginal, the immediate supervisor of Tecuico and Ricardo Bautista, head of the Provincial General Services Office, both of whom the Ombudsman cleared of the charges.
“It is worthy to note that in the order of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon dated September 19, 2022, to the filed counter-affidavit, it is signed by the Director, Preliminary Investigation, Administrative Adjudication and Prosecution Bureau,” the Noverases said.
“In the usual course of the investigation, the recommendation/findings should come from the same division that issued the order, and the decision in this case should emanate from the graft investigator, then signed by the director who issued the order to file the counter affidavit, then by the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon and approved by the Ombudsman; but this case goes out of the ordinary,” they said.
They also raised the issue of “inordinate delay” in the Ombudsman’s handling of a separate case where Noveras, the governor then, was also the principal respondent.
“It is very suspicious why the case filed against Gerardo Noveras on Oct. 1, 2016 together with the members of the Bids and Award Committee and engineers of the Provincial Engineering Office was resolved almost at the same time with the other case,” their counter affidavit stated.
The decision in the illegal printing case was dated Dec. 12, 2023 while the decision in the case that was filed in 2016 was dated Nov. 17, 2023; both decisions were signed by the Ombudsman on Feb. 21, 2024, which were also signed by Assistant Ombudsman Pilarita Lapitan and Tagulao-Marquez.
The 2016 case was about the installation of a sprinkler system at the Aurora Memorial Hospital.
“Since that case (2016) was more than seven years old from its filing, the principle of inordinate delay in resolving cases should have been applied but the Ombudsman found us guilty and ordered us to pay a fine equivalent to one-year basic salary,” they said.