Ombuds dismisses “premature” complaint

CEBU, Philippines -  For being premature, the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas dismissed an administrative complaint filed against a barangay councilor of Ibabao, Sogod who was earlier accused of oppression.

“Cognizant of the existence of a pending criminal case against respondent for trespass to dwelling and physical injuries arising out of the same acts committed, the instant administrative case must necessarily be dismissed for being premature. A conviction by final judgment must first precede the instant administrative case,” the decision reads.

A complaint for oppression was filed by Candido Diaz against John Joen Arnado.

In his complaint, Diaz alleged that Arnado punched him while he was asleep in his sister-in-law’s house at around 2:00 p.m. on August 4, 2011.

Diaz said he was awakened by Arnado’s punches and tried to stand up but failed. He added that he begged Arnado to stop but the barangay officials did not listen, prompted his wife, Elvira, to seek their neighbor’s help.   Diaz said he reported the incident to the Sogod Police Station.

He also filed a criminal complaint before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor for trespass to dwelling and physical injuries against the respondent.

In his counter-affidavit, Arnado said the administrative complaint filed against him was not related to his being a public official.

He said he went to the complainant to verify a report that Diaz took the motorcycle that was impounded by the police in connection with a traffic incident where he got seriously injured.

Arnado said that during their conversation, the complainant got angry and attacked him. Arnado claimed it was self-defense.

In her decision, graft investigator Maria Regina Hagad-Fernandez ruled that complainant failed to establish that the respondent’s acts were related to public office.

“Oppression has been defined as an act of cruelty, severity, unlawful exaction, domination or excessive use of authority. Respondent must be shown to have overstepped the bounds of his authority in the discharge of his office,” the decision reads.

Considering respondent did not refute the allegation of the complainant that there ensued an altercation between them, Fernandez said then respondent may be liable for misconduct or conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

However, since the criminal complaint is still pending before the Prosecutor’s Office, she said it was premature for their office to resolve the administrative complaint.

“When the crime involving moral turpitude is not linked with the performance of official duties, conviction by final judgment is required as a condition precedent to administrative action,” the decision reads. —MIT (FREEMAN)