G.R. No. 108431 - OSCAR G. RARO, VS. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, (SECOND DIVISION), THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, Nbi Director J. Antonio M. Carpio Endorsed On May 11, 1989 The Evaluation Comment And The Nbi AgentS Report To The Ombudsman. [6] On July 12, 1989, Nbi Agent Duka Submitted A Disposition Form Stating That Per The Joint Affidavit Of Yolly Manubay, Ruben Galeon, Rosario Poblete And Francisco Villaluz, PetitionerS Brother, Antonio Raro Signed Numerous Vouchers, Payrolls And Other Papers In The Name Of Joel Remigio. The Sworn Statement Of Teddy Aguirre And Xerox Copies Of Vouchers Supported This. However, The Original Copies Of The Vouchers Could Not Be Secured On Account Of The Cessation Of Operation Of The Stl In Camarines Norte Since July 1988. Neither Could The Sworn Statement Of Antonio Raro Be Secured. Thus, Nbi Agent Duka Recommended That Further Investigation Be Conducted In Coordination With Lucso In Lucena City. [7] Ombudsman Graft Investigation Officer Ii (Gio Ii) Theresa Medialdea-Caraos Submitted To Ombudsman Conrado Vasquez A Memorandum Dated March 15, 1990, With The Following Recommendation: Recommended Action: The Initial Report Of The Nbi Points Only To The Anomalies Allegedly Committed By The RespondentS Brother, Antonio. The Appointment Of His Sister Which Was Supposedly Imposed On The Complainant Is Not Supported By Evidence Other Than The Mere Allegation Of The Latter. The Misdeeds Committed By Respondent Were Not Based On Facts As Presented By Nbi. It Is Therefore Recommended That Further Investigation By Nbi Be Conducted In Order To Determine The Veracity Of The Charges. The Memorandum Was Recommended For Approval By Acting Director Gualberto J. De La Llana And Approved On March 22, 1990 By Ombudsman Vasquez. [8] On September 19, 1990, The Nbi Recommended The Prosecution Of Petitioner Based On AbañoS Complaint. [9] Thus, On May 14, 1991, Gio Ii Caraos Formally Directed Petitioner To File His Counter-Affidavit And Controverting Evidence To The Complaint Of May 6, 1988, With A Warning That His Failure To Do So Shall Be Construed As A Waiver Of His Right To Be Heard And The Preliminary Investigation Shall Proceed Accordingly. [10] On PetitionerS Motion, The Ombudsman Granted Him Until September 7, 1991 Within Which To File His Counter-Affidavit. On September 7, 1991, Petitioner Sought Another Extension Within Which To File His Counter-Affidavit. [11] Petitioner Filed His Counter-Affidavit On October 25, 1991. [12] He Asserted That He Removed Some Employees From The Lottery To Avoid Undue Injury To The Government. He Denied That He Hired Or Caused To Be Hired His Brother And Sister In The Experimental Lottery Research As They Maintained Their Affairs Without His Interference. He Also Denied Demanding Or Receiving Any Amount From Abaño Or From The Lottery Operator As It Was Impossible For Him To Demand Bribe Money In The Form Of A Check. He Claimed That AbañoS Complaint Was A Desperate Effort To Malign Him. [13] On November 29, 1991, Gio Ii Caraos Issued A Resolution Stating That: Evaluating The Complai