Ombudsman clears Hagedorn, et al. in graft case

Former Puerto Princesa Mayor Edward Hagedorn

Former Puerto Princesa Mayor Edward Hagedorn, several councilors and two private respondents have been cleared by the Ombudsman in the case involving the lease of two public markets and a slaughterhouse in 2013.

Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales approved the dismissal of the graft complaint on Dec. 15 last year,  but the 19-page resolution was released only this week after current Puerto Princesa Mayor Lucilo Bayron was dismissed from the service for dishonesty. (See related story.)

The resolution written by graft investigator Zarnette E. Sanceda was dated June 30, 2016 and was also approved by Sanceda’s superior, Joaquin E. Salazar, on July 1, 2016. Bayani H. Jacinto, officer in charge of the Office of the Assistant Ombudsman signed it on Aug. 3, 2016 and Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon Gerard A. Mosquera approved it two days later.

Aside from Hagedorn, the Office of the Ombudsman also dismissed the case against city administrator Agustin M. Rocamora, councilors Miguel Cuaderno IV, Henry Gadiano, Modesto Rodriguez II, Vicky T. de Guzman, Fernnie Max C. Asuncion, Eleutherius L. Edralino, Mark David M. Hagedorn, Rafaelita S. Oliveros and Patrick Alex M. Hagedorn for lack of probable cause.

The graft complaint was filed by Teresa A. Gabayan of the Mga Magtitinda ng Puerto Princesa Inc., who claimed that Hagedorn conspired with the city council to approve an ordinance to authorize the then mayor to enter into a lease contract for the operation of two public markets and a slaughterhouse that was grossly disadvantageous to the city government and the people.

However, after analyzing the evidence and the submissions of the parties, the Ombudsman said it was not authorized to invalidate contracts and declare the contested ordinance null and void.

“Nonetheless, assuming that the contracts should have been opened for bidding, respondents’ failure to do so would still not amount to the crimes charged,” the Obudsman said.

The Ombudsman said “it finds the evidence on record insufficient to establish the elements of evident bad faith, manifest partiality and gross inexcusable neglect on their part.”

Worse, the complainant failed to establish a conspiracy between public and private respondents, the Ombudsman said.

“There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a crime and decide to commit it. Conspiracy is not presumed. While it need not be established by direct evidence, the evidence therefore must be reasonably strong to show a community of criminal design.

“Conspiracy must be established by positive and conclusive evidence and cannot be based on mere conjecture,” the resolution argued.

Moreover, the resolution noted, ‘‘the claims of unwarranted benefits to the contractor and economic disadvantage to the government were not proven.”