The Court of Appeals (CA) has dismissed a petition filed by
several police officers against a ruling of the Office of the Ombudsman in
connection with the allegedly anomalous purchase of police coastal crafts
(PCCs) worth PhP4.54 million in 2009.
In a ruling written by Associate Justice Rodil Zalameda, the
CA's 11th Division dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by Chief Supt.
Asher Dolina, Senior Supts. Ferdinan Yuzon, Thomas Abellar and Cornelio
Salinas, Supts. Nepomuceno Corpus Jr. and Rico Payonga, and Senior Supt. Michel
Amos Filart.
Their petition with a prayer for the issuance of a temporary
restraining order (TRO) and preliminary mandatory injunction assailed the
consolidated resolution of the Ombudsman finding them criminally liable for
violation of Section 3(c) of Republic Act No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act of 2002, and administratively liable for grave
misconduct.
The same petition sought, among others, to set aside and
nullify the resolution and to cause the dismissal of the criminal and
administrative complaints against the petitioners.
In the Ombudsman ruling, it said that investigators found
that in 2009, the Philippine National Police (PNP) National Headquarters issued
a resolution for the procurement of the watercraft.
The items delivered were found to be defective.
Dolina and the others elevated their case to the CA.
Subsequently, the CA said that last October, four of the
petitioners — Dolina, Yuzon, Abellar and Payonga — filed a manifestation with
motion for leave to file amended petition with attached petition for review,
"after realizing that a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules is
the more appropriate remedy, thus the filing of the amended petition within the
petition allowed by the rules."
The CA said that “the procedural remedy is improper."
However, in its Nov. 23, 2015 ruling which was released last
Monday, the CA found merit on the new plea filed by the petitioners
"considering the same has been filed before any action by the court in the
case was made."
The CA granted their new appeal and admitted their fresh
petition.
"Without necessarily giving due course to the petition
for review, private respondent [Job F. Marasigan] is required to file a comment
thereto, not a motion to dismiss, within a period of ten (10) days from notice,
which comment may be treated as his answer to the petition should the same be
given due course. Petitioner may then file a reply within a period of five (5)
days from receipt of said comment," the CA said.
"Any action on the prayer for the issuance of an
injunctive writ is held in abeyance pending receipt of the aforesaid
pleadings," the CA added.
Concurring in the ruling were Associate Justices Sesinando
Villon and Pedro Corales.
http://www.pna.gov.ph/index.php?idn=1&sid=&nid=1&rid=842340
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.