Back to Search
JurisprudenceG.R. No. 232325 -

G.R. No. 232325 - DOMINGO CREBELLO, V. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND TIMOTEO T. CAPOQUIAN, JR..

Cited Laws

RA 93,RA 564,RA 470RA 431RA 470,RA 6770,RA 377
Share:

TL;DR — Ruling

WHEREFORE, this Office finds merit to UPGRADE the case into two (2) counts of Criminal and Administrative cases for NEPOTISM (Sec. 59 in relation to Sec. 67 of PD 807 - Administrative Code of 1987 and Sec. 49 in relation to Sec.

Decision

Ruling

WHEREFORE, this Office finds merit to UPGRADE the case into two (2) counts of Criminal and Administrative cases for NEPOTISM (Sec. 59 in relation to Sec. 67 of PD 807 - Administrative Code of 1987 and Sec. 49 in relation to Sec. 55 of Executive Order No. 292 - Civil Service Law) against Mayor Timoteo Capoquian and Vice Mayor Enrique Gomba, Municipality of Gamay, Northern Samar. Complainant PACPO alleged that the Sangguniang Bayan (SB) of the Municipality of Gamay passed and approved Resolution No. 10, Series of 2008, creating the Gamay Water District and empowering respondent Capoquian, Jr. to appoint members of its Board of Directors; that among those appointed by Capoquian, Jr. are Raquel, his sister and Clarita, wife of respondent Gomba; that in applying the rules of nepotism, the appointment of Raquel on March 5, 2008 is nepotic as she is related to respondent Capoquian, Jr. within the prohibited third degree of consanguinity; and that the appointment of Clarita was also nepotic for she was recommended by her husband, respondent Gomba as Vice Mayor/Presiding Officer of the SB. By Order of June 9, 2014, the Office directed respondents to file their Counter-Affidavits. Complainant was likewise given the chance to file its reply thereto. By Order of January 13, 2015, the Office directed the parties to file their respective verified position papers. Respondents, however, failed to heed both directives. Such failure is taken as a waiver on their part to controvert the charges. Nevertheless, the mere failure of respondents to submit their Counter-Affidavits does not automatically warrant a finding of probable cause. There is still a need to examine the evidence presented by the complainants to determine if the same is sufficient to indict them of the crimes charged. The case will thus be resolved on the basis of the evidence on record. [4] In its decision, the Office of the Ombudsman held that by reason of the re-election of respondent Capoquian, Jr. as Mayor during the 2010 elections, the administrative case against him should be dismissed by virtue of the doctrine of condonation of administrative offenses committed during a prior term following the Court's ruling in Aguinaldo v. Santos . [5] The dispositive portion of the decision of the OMB reads thusly: WHEREFORE, respondent ENRIQUE C. GOMBA is hereby found GUILTY of NEPOTISM and meted the penalty of DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE. The penalty of Dismissal shall carry with it cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from holding public office and bar from taking the civil service examinations. The charge against respondent TIMOTEO T. CAPOQUIAN, JR., who was re-elected as the Mayor of Camay, Northern Samar, is hereby dismissed for being moot. x x x x SO DECIDED. [6] The petitioner moved for partial reconsideration, arguing that the doctrine of condonation had already been abandoned on November 10, 2015 through the ruling promulgated in Morales v. Court o