Ombudsman exec seeks new probe of perjury case

Former Overall Deputy Ombudsman Margarito Gervacio on Monday contested the perjury charges filed against him for allegedly failing to declare a house in Davao City in his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) in 2003 and asked the Sandiganbayan to order a reinvestigation of the case.

Gervacio also asked for the deferment of the  warrant of arrest while his motion was being resolved.

In charging Gervacio with perjury, the Office of the Ombudsman said he did not declare the Davao house in his 2003 SALN, even though it was supposedly built in 1999. The house was included in his 2004 SALN.

The case stemmed from a complaint alleging that Gervacio had bought a piece of land in Davao City and erected a building on it using bank loans.

In his motion filed before the Sandiganbayan Second Division, Gervacio said the Ombudsman was supposed to resolve the issue on his alleged failure to declare his lot in Davao City in his SALN, but it went on to indict him for failing to declare his residential house.

Gervacio said he had admitted to ownership of the lot, and there was no issue about that. But he said there was no proof that he owned any improvements on the property, or that any had been built on it.

He said the list of buildings and the building permit supposedly showing that he owned the three-story residential building in Davao City did not prove that he owned the building  prior to 2003.

He noted that before the Ombudsman resolved the case, he was not shown the list of buildings found by the graft investigator.

“The accused was never given the opportunity to explain his side regarding the aforementioned documents and the surrounding circumstances thereof. This is a denial of due process,” he said, adding that had he been asked to explain, the case would not have been filed in the first place.

Gervacio also said there was no probable cause based on the preliminary investigation conducted, because there was no evidence to show that he owned the building before 2003.

He also argued that he was not given a chance to correct his SALN.

He pointed out that under the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, the Ombudsman should inform the employee reporting his SALN that it was not properly filed, and should direct him to correct it.