Margot on seven officials appeal: Tell that to court

CEBU, Philippines - Cebu City Councilor Margarita “Margot” Osmeña said yesterday that the seven officials  should make their appeal to the court and not to her, following their indictment by the City Prosecutor’s Office for their failure to return public property.

“They can tell that to the court, di ba? Not to me. In the same manner that the landfill has been closed, right? We can tell that to the court,” she told The FREEMAN.

Osmeña said that it is proper that the accused should make an appeal to the court that the vehicles issued to them have already been returned to the city.

 “If in their minds, and if they have good lawyers, all those reason’s they’re giving now, they can bring it up. That’s why they were given an opportunity to answer that,” Osmeña further said.

Earlier, seven city officials were indicted for violations of Article 221 of the Revised Penal Code. These were City Councilor Joel Garganera (former Tinago barangay captain) along with six other barangay captains: Ana Tabal of Tagba-o, Rosalita Callino of Buot, Lemar Alcover of Sambag I, Ramil Ayuman of Apas, Phillip Zafra of Tisa and Yolandito Cagang of Basak Pardo.

The seven are questioning why they were indicted for the violation when the vehicles in question have already been returned to the city’s custody.

They also questioned why these vehicles have not been turned over back to them when the only purpose for the recall was for inventory.

“To whom? To them? Why? It does not belong to them. Again, I used to say it belongs to the city unless they can open that lab compartment and their name was in it then it belongs to them, it is being used by the city,” Osmeña said.

She denied the accusation of Ayuman that her husband, Mayor Tomas Osmeña, used his power to fast track the indictment of the seven officials.

“I don’t know about that. I wasn’t here you know... Paspas na ba na pila na ka buwan, how many months na? Nine? Paspas na ba na? Nanganak naman guro ang buntis ana,” she said.

Councilor Osmeña was the complainant of the case against the seven before the fiscal’s office dated June 20 last year after the officials failed to heed the memorandum for the recall order of all city-issued vehicles for inventory.

At least 12 vehicles from the seven officials were not returned by the time the May 24 deadline set in the memorandum had lapsed.

In a separate interview, acting mayor Edgardo Labella said only Municipal Trial Court in Cities branch 1, 5 and 7 served a warrant of arrest against Ayuman, Tabal and Garganera.

Last Friday, Labella questioned the move of the court to serve arrest warrants since it was stipulated in Section 16 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure that the court would issue a warrant only if the accused failed to appear in the scheduled hearings.

“From the standpoint of lawyer, I have serious questions why a warrant of arrest was issued by the judge when these cases fall under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure particularly Section 16, thereof when it categorically provides that the court shall not arrest the accused,” he said.

Section 16 of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure provides that “the court shall not order the arrest of the accused except for failure to appear whenever required. Release of the person arrested shall either be on bail or on recognizance by a responsible citizen acceptable to the court.”

Labella, however, agrees with Councilor Osmeña that the seven accused should present their appeal before the court. (FREEMAN)