Ombudsman orders dismissal of Cagayan de Oro City Mayor

MANILA, Philippines—The Office of the Ombudsman has ordered the dismissal of Cagayan De Oro city Mayor Oscar Moreno for graft involving P1.4-million lease of heavy equipment without conducting any public bidding.

The graft charges against Moreno stemmed from a lease of heavy equipment during his incumbency as Misamis Oriental Governor. He is now serving as Cagayan de Oro City Mayor.

Moreno and seven others are facing six counts of violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019).

Standing as Moreno’s co-accused before the Sandiganbayan are members of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) Patrick Gabutina, Elsie Lopoy, Rolando Pacuribot, Divina Bade, Cancio Guibone, Leemar Tinagan and Elmer Wabe.

The Ombudsman also found Moreno, Lopoy, Pacuribot, Wabe, Tinagan et. al. guilty of Grave Misconduct, Serious Dishonesty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and ordered their dismissal from the service.

The order of dismissal carries the accessory penalties of perpetual disqualification from holding public office, cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits and bar from taking the civil service examination.
The record obtained by the Ombudsman showed Moreno, et. al. approved and facilitated the payment of P1,414,179.40 for the lease of fuel tankers, trailer trucks and vibratory road roller on various dates in 2007 and from 2011 to 2012.

The Ombudsman noted that the deal was done without conducting a public bidding. Instead, respondents resorted to the alternative method of Shopping.

Respondents failed to show a single BAC resolution or minutes of the BAC meeting to justify the procurement. Due to these irregularities, Notices of Disallowance (ND) were issued by the Commission on Audit (COA).

In defending the act, the local executives claimed that appeals on the NDs were still pending before the COA.

The Ombudsman ruled that “the appeals to do not foreclose the Office’s authority to investigate and determine whether there is a crime to be prosecuted for which they are answerable. This is so because the Ombudsman is given the power to investigate on its own an illegal act or omission of a public official.”

Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales stated “the preliminary investigation is independent from the investigation conducted by the COA, their purposes distinct from each other. The first involves the determination of the fact of the commission of the crime; the second relates to the administrative aspect of the expenditure of public funds.”

The Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 prohibits public officials from causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence./