Ex-Samar mayor convicted for not giving planning head chance to dispute dismissal
Samar map
MANILA, Philippines — A former mayor of San Sebastian town in Samar province has been convicted for graft by the Sandiganbayan after he failed to give the city’s former planning department head a chance to dispute the latter’s dismissal.
In the decision dated July 18, Sandiganbayan’s Fourth Division said that former mayor Arnold Abalos violated Republic Act No. 3019 when he chose to ignore the motion for reconsideration filed by Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator Robert Rebosura.
Rebosura filed the motion after Abalos designated another officer to head the planning department, therefore removing him from his post — which Rebosura said was an act of discrimination by Abalos.
Rebosura, who claimed that his removal was borne from the complaints he filed against Abalos for not remitting premiums of municipal workers for the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), said the former mayor also neglected his motion for reconsideration regarding the denial of his leave application.
READ: Ex-mayor, others face raps in Samar
Article continues after this advertisementSandiganbayan in its 30-page decision denied discussing the motion for reconsideration on Rebosura’s denied leave application, but sided with the planning coordinator on the motion regarding his removal from office.
Article continues after this advertisementThe Fourth Division said that the defense has presented no proof to prove that Abalos, who said that Rebosura was removed due to habitual absences, indeed talked with the complainant to clear out the matter.
“First, the removal of Rebosura from his position was abrupt, without him having the opportunity to explain his side. When asked during trial, accused stated that he had the chance to talk to Rebosura regarding the latter’s habitual absences and that the issue was discussed in earlier staff meetings,” the decision penned by Fourth Division chair Associate Justice Alex Quiroz said.
“However, no proof was adduced by the defense to support such claims. Further, on whether he issued any memorandum regarding Rebosura’s habitual absences prior to his replacement as MPDC, accused, on separate occasions, gave contradicting answers,” the Court added.
The anti-graft court also stressed that the manner Rebosura was removed from office was irregular, as it was done through a “mere memorandum” and not by filing a formal complaint.
“Next, aside from denying Rebosura the opportunity to explain, the manner by which he was removed from his position was also attended by irregularity – by means of a mere memorandum, unsupported by any complaint, investigation, or formal charge,” Sandiganbayan said.
“Finally, accused failed to decisively resolve Rebosura’s motion for reconsideration. The issue of Rebosura’s replacement or the uncertainty in its resolution persisted for over a year, until the eventual termination of his employment,” it noted.
Associate Justices Lorifel Lacap Pahimna and Maria Theresa Mendoza-Arcega concurred with Quiroz’ decision, while Associate Justices Bayani Jacinto and Maryann Corpus-Mañalac issued dissenting opinions on the issue.
According to Jacinto, the burden of proving that Abalos discriminated against Rebosura falls on the prosecution. However, he said that the complainant’s side could not prove that the former mayor indeed decided to replace Rebosura due to the GSIS-related complaint.
“Applying the foregoing pronouncements to the context of this case, to prove discrimination, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to show that Mr. Rebosura was treated differently from similarly situated officers or employees,” Jacinto said in the dissenting opinion included in the decision.
“However, the prosecution failed to present evidence showing that accused unduly singled out Mr. Rebosura while others in the same office enjoyed immunity from administrative sanctions regardless of errant conduct. In like manner, it failed to show that his motion for reconsideration was treated differently from other pending matters addressed to accused or his office,” he added.
Jacinto also noted that Abalos’ failure to respond to Rebosura’s motion falls under local government and civil service rules and not on the anti-graft law that penalizes erring public officials.
But with the majority decision convicting Abalos, he is sentenced to serve jail time for a minimum of six years and one month to a maximum of eight years. He is also perpetually disqualified from holding public office.
