Aurora officials sacked sans direct evidence

Former Aurora Gov. Gerardo Noveras. FILE PHOTO

Former Aurora Gov. Gerardo Noveras and former Vice Gov. Christian Noveras disputed the Ombudsman’s order sacking the father and son from service even as the Ombudsman admitted there was “insufficient direct evidence” against them.

“We were meted the penalty of dismissal from the service despite the ‘insufficient direct evidence’ to pin us down,” the Noverases said in a counter affidavit.

They were referring to the 28-page order, signed by Ombudsman Samuel Martires on Feb. 21, 2024, finding the Noverases and Michael Tecuico, a casual employee, guilty of grave misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and conduct unbecoming of public official.

READ: Vice gov assumes top post in Aurora

“While there may be insufficient direct evidence of their agreement, their conspiracy is implied, as shown by their common objective of printing campaign tarpaulins to further the massive election propaganda of the Noveras and allies.”

The dismissal order, issued April 5, 2024, sided with complainant Narciso D. Amansec, a resident, who accused the Noverases, Tecuico and two other officials of conspiring to print tarpaulins inside the Aurora Training Center in Baler, Aurora.

But the Noverases argued that Amansec failed to present evidence or proof that the Noverases ordered Tecuico before or during the alleged printing of the supposed election materials.

READ: Aurora governor suspended for 90 days by Sandiganbayan

Amansec also failed to present proof that the father and son knew of the alleged illegal printing of campaign materials, the Noverases said in their appeal.

Amansec also implicated Joel Friginal, the immediate supervisor of Tecuico, and Ricardo Bautista, head of the Provincial General Services Office, in the alleged conspiracy, but both were cleared of the charges.

2016 case

The father-and-son tandem also questioned why the Ombudsman undertook a process that was out of the ordinary.

They argued that the approval process appeared to have been abbreviated in the disqualification case and, they claim, conflated with an older, unrelated case that was already “inordinately delayed.”

“It is very suspicious why the case filed against Gerardo Noveras on Oct. 1, 2016, together with the members of the Bids and Awards Committee and engineers of the Provincial Engineering Office, was resolved almost at the same time with the other case,” Noveras’ his counter affidavit stated.

The decision in the illegal printing case was dated Dec. 12, 2023, while the decision in the case that was filed in 2016 was dated Nov. 17, 2023; both decisions were signed by the Ombudsman on Feb, 21, 2024, which were also signed by Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer III, Leilani P. Tagulao-Marquez and Assistant Ombudsman Pilarita T. Lapitan.

The 2016 case was about the procurement of equipment for the Aurora Memorial Hospital.

“Since that case was more than 7 years old from its filing, the principle of inordinate delay in resolving cases should have been applied but the Ombudsman found us guilty ordered us to pay a fine equivalent to one-year basic salary,” Geraro Noveras said.