Libel, perjury charges vs. San Carlos execs dismissed
SAN CARLOS CITY–A resolution of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon dismissed the complaints for libel and perjury as well as violation of Republic Act No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for public officials and employees against 11 department heads and other officials of the local government here.
The Ombudsman ruled that on the charge of the crime of libel, the records disclose that respondents did not act with malice when they wrote the letter. Instead, respondents’ act falls within the purview of privileged communication described under Article 354 (a) 8 of the Revised Penal Code.
The complaints were filed by Arturo Mandapat, retired city treasurer of San Carlos City and now consultant to the San Carlos City government on local taxation.
Mandapat had alleged that the 11 respondents filed on January 21, 2013 a baseless complaint against him before the Ombudsman and also wrote a letter dated January 15, 2013 to President Benigno Aquino III containing libelous and defamatory accusation against him intended to ruin his image and reputation.
The contents of the letter of the respondents to the President alleged among others that the complainant uses the Office of the Treasurer as his office; decides and or approves all transactions involving disbursement of public funds in the Office of the City Treasurer; solicits kickbacks from respondents for and in consideration of the approval of their transactions.
Moreover, the respondents pleaded to have the complainant barred from the office of the City Treasurer.
The respondents denied the charges imputed against them as they claimed that the contents of the letter dated January 15, 2013 are true and that they have personal knowledge of the acts they alleged because they personally transacted with the City Treasurer and the complainant.
Likewise, they maintained that the letter was not intended to injure complainant’s person, integrity or reputation and cannot therefore be held liable for perjury “because the letter is not under oath”.
The respondents were Zenaida Cabuang, Executive Assistant IV; Marilyn Soliven, Supervising Administrative Office IV; Maryjane Pagsolingan, Administrative Officer; Edwin Guinto,City Health Officer; Jesusa Viduya, City Social Welfare and Development Officer; Virgilio Ramos, City Planning and Development Coordinator;Solomon Gabuyan, City Veterinarian; Arlaine De Vera, City Cooperative Officer; Rowena Bulatao, Human Resource Management Officer; Jovelyn Paragna, Assistant City Accountant; and Estrella Cabansag, City Agriculturist.
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
“Every communication is privileged which is made in good faith with a view to obtain redress for some injury received or to prevent or punish some public abuse. In this case, the respondents wrote the letter to the President of the Philippines for the purpose of seeking redress from complainant’s alleged illegal acts,” the resolution reads in part.
At the same time, the Ombudsman said that the charge for the crime of perjury also fails because the veracity of the chargers imputed against complainant as alleged in their letter “is still pending for resolution before this Office”. Hence, whether the charges are totally untrue and a deliberate falsehood are yet to be established.–LVM
Share your Comments or Reactions
Powered by Facebook Comments
