Noveras cites SC ruling vs dismissal order

A Supreme Court ruling negates the arguments that the Ombudsman has used in its dismissal order against former Aurora province officials, Gerardo Noveras and Christian Noveras said Tuesday.

Citing the SC en banc decision, the Noveras father-and-son tandem said that "substantial evidence" is necessary for an accused to be declared guilty of conspiracy and meted with the corresponding penalty.

The Ombudsman admitted to the "insufficient direct evidence" from the complainant, but it proceeded just the same to declare us guilty", the Noverases said.

The SC ruling in GR 219771- GR 219773 dated 18 September 2018 stated, "in the first place, conspiracy as a means of incurring liability is strictly confined to criminal cases; even assuming that the records indicate the existence of a felonious scheme, the administrative liability of a person allegedly involved in such scheme cannot be established through conspiracy, considering that one's administrative liability is separate and distinct from penal liability.

The SC elaborated: "Thus, in administrative cases, the only inquiry in determining liability is simply whether the respondent, through his individual actions, committed the charges against him that render him administratively liable."

Applying such ruling to their case, the Noverases said the Ombudsman's anti-graft probers merely relied on the allegations of the complainant, who lacked proof. Thus, the Ombudsman wrote: "While there may be insufficient direct evidence of their agreement, their conspiracy is implied, as shown by their common objective of printing campaign tarpaulins to further the massive election propaganda of the Noveras and allies."

But in the same dismissal order, the Ombudsman dropped the charges against their supposed allies and co-respondents 'for lack of substantial evidence,' something which the Noverases called "selective justice" which amounted to injustice.

The assailed dismissal order got the approval of Ombudsman Samuel Martires on Feb. 21, 2024, based on the recommendation of graft investigators headed by Leilani P. Tagulao-Marquez, Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer III and Pilarita Lapitan, Assistant Ombudsman. The order docketed as OMB-L-A-22-0210 and OMB L-C-22-0223, Amansec vs Noveras et al. was officially relayed to the Noverases on 5 April through their legal counsel.

Meanwhile, the Noverases are mulling over the the possibility of taking their plight before the Department of Justice. This developed as the Noverases claimed that a mole or insider was operating within the Ombudsman.

The DOJ under EO 292 has the mandate to investigate crimes and a mole inside the graft body is worthy of the DOJ inquiry before he/she could inflict damage to a Constitutional body.

"With a "mole" operating within the Ombudsman, there is strong possibility of data breach, and the anti-graft inquiries might have been compromised," Noveras said.