Ex-Aurora officials cite SC ruling vs Ombudsman

Ex-Aurora officials cite SC ruling vs Ombudsman

/ 05:56 AM May 18, 2024

Gerardo Noveras of Aurora

Gerardo Noveras of Aurora. FILE PHOTO

Former Aurora province officials Gerardo Noveras and and his son Christian Noveras continued to assail the Ombudsman’s recent ruling against them despite a Supreme Court ruling on the need for “substantial evidence.”

The father and son cited the 2018 Supreme Court decision on the case of Philippine National Police-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group vs Police Supt. Ermilando Villafuerte.


The ruling stated that “conspiracy as a means of incurring liability is strictly confined to criminal cases” and cannot be applied to administrative cases.


The father and son tandem released the statement through their lawyer on Tuesday as they assailed the Ombudsman’s dismissal orders, approved by Ombudsman Samuel Martires on Feb. 21, copies of which were relayed to them on April 5.

The Commission on Elections disqualified the older Noveras on Sept. 6 last year for allegedly using government resources for his campaign materials.

Last December, the Ombudsman suspended Christian after finding him, his father, and casual government employee Michael Tecuico in connection with the printing of the Noveras camp’s campaign materials at the Aurora Training Center, a government-owned compound.

However, “the Ombudsman admitted to the ‘insufficient direct evidence’ from the complainant, but it proceeded just the same to declare us guilty,” the Noveras camp said.

The Supreme Court said in its ruling on the 2015 case that “even assuming that the records indicate the existence of a felonious scheme, the administrative liability of a person allegedly involved in such scheme cannot be established through conspiracy, considering that one’s administrative liability is separate and distinct from penal liability.”

However, the Ombudsman still needed to present substantial and not “implied” evidence to convict someone of conspiracy.


In the dismissal order, the Ombudsman said that “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.”

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

TAGS: Aurora, Supreme Court

© Copyright 1997-2024 INQUIRER.net | All Rights Reserved

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. By continuing, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more, please click this link.