PAO chief hails case dismissal
It should be stressed that the allegations in the complaint were based on news articles and other online postings lifted from the Internet and social media
A visibly happy Atty. Persida Rueda Acosta, Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) chief, yesterday announced the so-called “baseless harassment cases” filed against her and Atty. Erwin P. Erfe by a lawyer has been dismissed by the Office of the Ombudsman.
The dismissal happened a few weeks after President Rodrigo Duterte vetoed the one sentence insertion made by Senators Franklin Drilon and Sonny Angara aimed at decapitating the PAO Forensic Laboratory Division by taking out its budget and the salary for its plantilla personnel.
On 22 October 2018, a certain Atty. Wilfredo Garrido Jr. filed a case against Acosta and Erfe for violation of Republic Act 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, falsification of public documents, malversation of public funds and illegal use of public funds or property.
They were also charged administratively for grave misconduct, serious dishonesty, grave abuse of authority and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of public service.
In his complaint, Garrido said, “Apart from misusing public funds to create an office without authority, respondents’ propensity to manufacture evidence in an office under their direct control is indicative of bias, persecution, malice and downright dishonesty.”
Both the complaint and the motion to suspend stemmed from Acosta’s initiative to create a PAO Forensic Laboratory without authority from Congress, a move that Garrido said “caters to Acosta’s whims and caprices.”
Acosta said that on 15 August 2019, which happened to be her birthday, the PAO office was rocked when news came out about the alleged falsified anonymous unsigned manifestation with prayer for the immediate preventive suspension of the PAO chief allegedly filed by intervening attorneys before the Office of the Ombudsman.
She said using the said black propaganda, Garrido called on the Ombudsman for an investigation, which advanced nothing but unsubstantiated grounds based merely on suppositions and conjectures.
According to the ruling of the Ombudsman through Ombudsman Samuel Martirez, “This office finds in the negative.”
“There is no probable cause for violation of Section 3(e) and (j) of RA 3019 as amended… At the outset, it should be stressed that the allegations in the complaint were based on news articles and other online postings lifted from the Internet and social media. Complainants allegations cannot therefore be considered as proceeding from his own personal knowledge,” the ruling said.
Apart from misusing public funds to create an office without authority, respondents’ propensity to manufacture evidence in an office under their direct control is indicative of bias, persecution, malice and downright dishonesty.
It added, “Similarly, the filing of a pleading which is unsigned by any identifiable author cannot be countenanced for being violative of Administrative Order 07, or the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, which allows parties, and their counsels, to the case to file pleadings, including affidavits of their witnesses and other supporting documents not deemed prohibited under Section 4(d) Rule ll (Procedure in Administrative cases.”
Acosta said she is happy that the truth has prevailed in all instances.