For indirect bribery: 2 prosecutors facing charges

CEBU, Philippines — Barely two months after they were suspended, Cebu City Prosecutor Liceria S. Lofranco-Rabillas and Assistant City Prosecutor Gandhi B. Truya sustained yet another legal blow after the Office of the Ombudsman has recommended the filing of an indirect bribery case against them.

The anti-graft office, in its recent decision, found probable cause against the two public officials based on the complaint Cebuano businessman Mark Yu has filed against them for alleged violation of Republic Act No. 3019 otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

“Wherefore, given the necessary substantiation, there is a probable cause found against respondents Gandhi Bambilla Truya and Liceria S. Lofranco Rabillas for one count of the crime of indirect bribery under Article 211 of the RPC. Let the correspondent Information be filed before the proper court,” read the resolution penned by Graft Investigator and Prosecution Officer Philip Albert Beta.

Ombudsman Samuel R. Martires, Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas Dante F. Vargas, and Preliminary Investigation Administrative Adjudication and Prosecution Bureau Director Jane Aguilar had approved the resolution.

In his complaint, Yu said he filed complaints for estafa and violation of RA 101752 against his former business partner, Brezhnev Tero, before the Cebu City Prosecutor's Office sometime in 2016, where two of the four estafa cases were recommended for filing.

Yu said that Truya, as reviewing officer of all his dismissed estafa cases, found that “there is no estafa committed in trust transactions which covers sums of money.”

Yu was puzzled because, in another resolution rendered involving supposedly the same facts, Truya and Lofranco-Rabillas recommended the filing of Information for estafa on a Trust Receipt Agreement.

Because of this, Yu allegedly confronted Truya, whom the former considered as a friend as they always see each other during practice runs and in marathons, at the latter's office and expressed his dismay over how he handled his cases.

Yu claimed that Truya informed him that Lofranco-Rabillas had just directed him to do so, as Tero was accordingly backed up by someone powerful and influential, to whom the latter owes a lot.

Truya, however, reportedly assured Yu that Lofranco-Tabillas was not difficult to deal with though.

MONEY DEPOSITED

Sometime in February 2018, Yu claimed that he chanced upon Truya at the Capitol parking lot, where the latter allegedly waited for him and handed him a piece of paper bearing Lofranco-Rabillas’s alleged bank account number.

The city prosecutor was allegedly about to attend an event in Bohol and she needed funds of around P50,000 to defray her expenses.

Truya allegedly told Yu that it was his chance “to befriend his chief.”

After consultation with friends and having been assured that the future cases he might be filing at the Cebu City Prosecutor's Office would probably get a favorable ruling, Yu deposited P50,000 to Lofranco-Rabillas’ alleged Bank of the Philippines Islands (BPI) account on March 7, 2018.

Yu even said Lofranco-Rabillas even went to their house to administer the oath for his wife’s affidavit on September 11, 2018, since his wife was ill.

But in early 2019, Yu got dismayed again when some of the estafa cases he had filed were again dismissed.

Yu allegedly tried to see Truya but the latter became evasive.

He later learned that Truya and Tero were batchmates at the University of San Carlos Boys High School (USC-BHS) Class 1988, which was most probably the reason why all the cases he filed against him were dismissed.

Defense

In their counter affidavits, Rabillas and Truya denied the charges against them as well as their supposed “friendship” with Yu, whose cases they dismissed, and whom they claimed was only a disgruntled litigant who retaliated for his lost cases.

They also considered Yu’s baseless complaint as malicious and was just trying to discredit and humiliate their office before the media.

Truya, for his part, reasoned that it was impossible for him to drive or be at the Capitol Compound sometime February to March 2018 to hand the bank account details as he had a bike crash that fractured his right clavicle and impaired his movements on February 24, 2018.

Truya also denied being a friend of Yu and denied being batchmates or friends with Tero whom he allegedly learned was never a member of Class 1988 of USC-BHS.

Truya also argued that Yu’s act of depositing P50,000 in Lofranco-Rabillas’ account without the latter's knowledge while expecting a favorable decision is even punishable under Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code.

Lofranco-Rabillas, on the other hand, defended that since she assumed as the City Prosecutor, she had always combated corruption.

She also denied having received any pecuniary benefit from the complainant and submitted a bank certification to attest to it.

She further denied that there was no conference or seminar or any other event that involved her or the Office of the City Prosecutor sometime in the first and second quarter of 2018 in Bohol.

Lofranco-Rabillas, however, admitted having sworn complainant's wife past 5 p.m. on September 11, 2018 at their residence considering that the latter was indeed very sick at that time.

She was with her secretary Mary Ann V. Macias and her then police escort Lyndon Fuentes.

The Ruling

The anti-graft office is puzzled at how the complainant obtained Lofranco-Rabillas’ BPI account details, when such information is supposedly kept private, as provided for by the Bank Secrecy Law, and which cannot be easily acquired by anyone unless given by the account holder herself or by someone privy to him or her.

The Ombudsman added Truya failed to deny that he is knowledgeable of Lofranco-Rabillas’ BPI account number, neither did Lofranco-Rabillas deny that she gave Truya her account details.

The anti-graft office added that Rabillas’ presentation of a bank certification, in effect, only strengthened Yu’s allegation that the bank account indeed belongs to Lofranco-Rabillas.

“Thus, it can only be surmised that there was really such an amount that was deposited on that day. Granting that Lofranco-Rabillas had no knowledge as to the amount or the purpose for which the same was deposited, yet there is no showing that said amount was surrendered or consigned. This, may regrettably, be regarded as acceptance on her part,” the ruling read.

“To make matters worse and to aggravate the timing of events, Lofranco-Rabillas made complainant's spouse take an oath before her, at their very residence, after office hours or 5:00 p.m. on September 11, 2018 or after the said P50,000 was deposited to her account, together with her secretary Macias and Fuentes,” the anti-graft office added.

The ombudsman said that given the “testimonial and documentary evidences on hand,” they can deduce that Truya may have provided the means for Yu to offer a “gift” to Lofranco-Rabillas and may thus have acted as the latter’s conduit in the prohibited act of soliciting or requesting P50,000 in relation to office or official functions, which Lofranco-Rabillas, in effect, accepted.

Earlier, the anti-graft office found both prosecutors guilty of the administrative complaint that Yu has filed and slapped Lofranco-Rabillas with a three-month suspension without pay after she was proven guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

Truya, for his part, was suspended for one month without pay for simple misconduct. — /GAN (FREEMAN)