G.R. Nos. 197433 and 197435 - EDWARD THOMAS F. JOSON, V. THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, AURELIO M. UMALI, GIOVANNI AGTAY, ALEJANDRO R. ABESAMIS, EDILBERTO M. PANCHO, AND JAIME P. PALLANAN.

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the undersigned Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer respectfully recommends that: The charges against respondents Aurelio M. Umali, Alejandro R. Abesamis, Giovanni G. Agtay, Edilberto M. Pancho, and Jaime P. Pallanan for Violation of Secs. 3 (e), (g), and (h), Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; Frauds on the Public Treasury; Prohibited Transactions; Possession of a Prohibited Interest; Malversation; and Violation of Republic Act No. 6713 , be DISMISSED for lack of probable cause; The [charge] against respondents Aurelio M. Umali, Alejandro R. Abesamis, Giovanni G. Agtay, Edilberto M. Pancho, and Jaime P. Pallanan for Grave Misconduct be DISMISSED for lack of merit; and The counter-charge against complainant Edward Thomas F. Joson for Perjury be DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO RESOLVED. [52] (Emphasis in the original) Joson moved for reconsideration, [53] which was denied by Prosecutor Acero in his May 9, 2011 Order for being filed out of time. [54] Even if the Motion for Reconsideration would be given due course, it would still be denied for lack of merit. [55] Hence, on July 15, 2011, Joson filed this Petition for Certiorari [56] against the Office of the Ombudsman, Umali, Agtay, Abesamis, Pancho, and Pallanan. He prays that the December 4, 2009 Joint Resolution and the May 9, 2011 Order of the Office of the Ombudsman be set aside. [57] Petitioner argues that Cleopatra's testimony "remained rock solid." [58] There was no denial from respondents Umali and Pallanan on the truthfulness of Cleopatra's allegations in her sworn statement. Both respondents evaded responsibility by blaming their subordinates or fellow private respondents. Moreover, respondent Umali was "not only a mere signatory to the documents but a principal who acted in conspiracy with his co-respondents to commit fraud and corruption against the coffers of the provincial government." [59] Petitioner also stresses the excessive quantity of packed lunches that was allegedly delivered to the Nueva Ecija Convention Center for the oath-taking ceremony. [60] With respect to private respondent Abesamis, petitioner claims that he made contradicting statements in his Counter-Affidavit. Private respondent Abesamis stated that the Memorandum of Agreement was legally defective for not being signed by the former governor and the witnesses and for not being notarized, yet he recognized its validity when he was trying to arrange a new canteen operator. [61] Further, respondent Abesamis admitted that he talked to Cleopatra several times regarding the early termination of the Memorandum of Agreement and that he prepared the termination notice for Cleopatra's signature. [62] Petitioner points out that private respondent Agtay's acknowledgment of his lack of participation to the catering transaction and of the documents' lack of his signature implies that the private respondents who signed these documents were principals of the compla