CA reverses Ombud ruling, clears Sonny O. in graft case
The Court of Appeals has cleared suspended Toledo City Mayor John Henry “Sonny” Osmeña of accusations that he refused to release the tax shares of a barangay last year.
The CA’s 19th Division granted Osmeña’s petition for review and reversed the ombudsman’s decision, which earlier indicted him of six counts of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (RA) 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
“Therefore, the Ombudsman should have considered Osmeña’s reelection as City Mayor in the May 2016 elections as rendering the imposition of the administrative sanction of suspension moot and academic on the basis of the “condonation rule,” read the CA decision penned by Associate Justice Louis Acosta.
Lawyer Inocencio de la Cerna, Osmeña’s legal consultant, welcomed the CA’s decision.
“As stated earlier the juggernaut continues in the recovery of the leadership of Toledo City so that services to its constituents and the protection of people’s money may be safeguarded rendered and given,” said de la Cerna.
Osmeña is expected to return to office in September after serving his one-year suspension after the Office of the Ombudsman found him guilty of grave abuse of authority.
The case stemmed from Osmena’s “consistent and undue refusal” to release the quarterly real property tax (RPT) shares of Barangay Daanglungsod.
Records from the Ombudsman showed the barangay was supposed to receive a total of P17.7 million as its share in the RPT for the third quarter of 2014.
Replying to the charges, Osmeña said he did not release the RPT because of the ongoing case involving Barangay Sangi and the City of Toledo, which he said was pending before the Court of Appeals.
He said he is merely protecting the government funds and properties. Osmeña said he thought of protecting public funds when he was informed about the pending case on the ownership of the real properties involved in the boundary dispute between Sangi and Daanglungsod.
In the resolution dated Aug. 9, 2017, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales rejected Osmeña’s defense, saying the boundary dispute between the two barangays had long been settled.
Morales said the decision was already issued by the Toledo Sangguniang Panlungsod on Aug. 1, 2008, which became final and executory in 2011 after the Regional Trial Court denied the appeal of Barangay Sangi.
Osmeña’s lawyers then filed a petition for review with the CA, arguing the ombudsman committed “grave and serious error” in not dismissing the complaint based on the Aguinaldo doctrine.
In the decision, the appeals court ruled that Osmeña’s re-election in the May 2016 elections operates as a condonation of his previous misconduct.
“Thus, any administrative liability which Osmeña might have incurred is deemed extinguished by his re-election in May 2016,” the CA said.
While the Supreme Court abandoned the Aguinaldo doctrine in the case of Conchita Carpio-Morales vs CA and Jejomar Binay, Jr., the high tribunal stressed the jurisprudence is still applicable in cases that occurred prior to the Morales ruling.