THE Ombudsman absolved Senior Deputy State Prosecutor Severino H. Gaña Jr. of the Department of Justice of any liability arising from the administrative complaint filed against him by a litigant in 2012.
In a seven-page decision, copy of furnished the DOJ, the Ombudsman ruled that there is no substantial evidence to hold Gaña liable for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
The decision penned by Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer II Fatima Kristine J. Franco-Ilao ordered the dismissal of the complaint against the DOJ official.
“This Office finds no substantial evidence to demonstrate respondent’s use or misuse of authority, or transgression of some established rule of law nor a showing that respondent’s actions in the context they were made tarnished the image and integrity of his public service,” the decision approved by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales.
Then Justice Secretary and now Senator Leila de Lima caused the filing of charges against Gaña.
The case arose from the administrative complaint filed by one Nuriza Abeja Jr., one of the respondents in an adultery case filed before the Prosecutor’s Office of Makati City. The case was subsequently dismissed, but was elevated to the DOJ on a petition for review.
During the pendency of the petition, one of the office staff of Gaña—Mutya Santiago-Tobes—allegedly informed Abeja that she could help fix the case for P300,000 until the price was lowered to P250,000.
On Aug. 17, 2012, Abeja reported the matter to then justice secretary and now Senator Leila de Lima, who referred her to the National Bureau of Investigation, which conducted an entrapment operation against Mutya.
An extortion case was filed against Mutya before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 54 but was eventually dismissed the same after granting her demurrer to evidence.
In his counter-affidavit, Gaña explained that he met Abeja, who introduced herself as a member of a Non-Governmental Organization affiliated with UNICEF, in one of the programs of the Anti-human Trafficking Task Force, which he headed in 2006 to 2011.
Gaña thought that Abeja’s visits were only by reason of their interactions in the programs, but never mentioned to him that she had a pending case on appeal before the DOJ.
In a ruling dated November 25, 2016 but was released to the media only recently, Ombudsman Morales sided with Gaña’s assertion “that he was not privy to the supposed transactions between complainant and Mutya.”
“Even the complaint affidavit shows that the alleged transaction was between complainant and Mutya only. Also, during the entrapment operation, the NBI operatives recovered the boodle money from Mutya,” the ruling opined.
According to the Ombudsman, Abeja never claimed to have talked with respondent in person regarding the alleged pay-off.
“The allegation that respondent insisted on the payment during phone conversations with the complainant remains just that,” the ruling said.