Sandigan clears former Ombudsman officials of falsification, tampering with documents

The Sandiganbayan has acquitted former Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon Mark Jalandoni and former Assistant Ombudsman Nenette de Padua of tampering with the anti-graft body's rulings and sitting on cases.

The anti-graft court, via a split 3-2 vote, cleared Jalandoni and De Padua of 13 counts of falsification of documents and 56 counts of violation of Article 226 of the Revised Penal Code due to the prosecution's failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

“The prosecution failed to overcome the presumption of innocence of Jalandoni and de Padua. This presumption continues until their guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt," the Sandiganbayan said in a 52-page decision.

"Criminal conviction must come from the strength of the prosecution's evidence, and not from the weakness of the defense,” it added.

Jalandoni was accused of making it appear that he was the final approving authority for the filing of criminal charges by supplanting his name over that of the original signatory. Likewise, government prosecutors also alleged that at least 56 cases in the Ombudsman are pending on Jalandoni's desk even if these were supposed to be resolved either by filing charges or dismissing the complaint.

Jalandoni, who defended himself in the said charges, argued that he did not falsify his authority over the cases since then Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez delegated him authority to make decisions. He said Gutierrez was facing an impeachment complaint in the House of Representatives back then.

One of the grounds cited in the impeachment complaint against Gutierrez was her alleged inaction or arbitrary delay of resolving pending cases before the Ombudsman.

The Sandiganbayan ruled that the concealment which happened by “patching” or covering the name and signature of the signing authority with a piece of paper bearing the name of Jalandoni is not illegal, considering that the prosecution's witness, administrative officer Jesus Salvador, testified that such practice was “not something new or unusual at the Office of the Ombudsman.”

“The prosecution failed to establish the elements of removal, destruction, or concealment by Jalandoni and de Padua of the so-called ‘action documents’ with moral certainty. The patching, by itself, covered only the name and signature of the approving authority: it did not in any way conceal the document or paper itself,” the court said.

Likewise, the Sandiganbayan said there were instances wherein patches that contained Jalandoni's name indicated the basis of his authority to sign the document.

"In any event, placing a patch over a portion of a document or paper cannot, by itself, equate to concealment of a document or paper as understood under Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code," the anti-graft court said.

Those who ruled in favor of acquitting Jalandoni and De Padua were Associate Justices Ronald  Moreno, who penned the decision; Oscar Herrera Jr.; and Edgardo Caldona.

Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang and Associate Justice Bernelito Fernandez dissented with the majority decision.—AOL, GMA News