MANILA -- The Office of the Ombudsman has dismissed the criminal and administrative cases against former and current officials of the Commission on Higher Education (Ched).
In a statement Tuesday, CHED reported that the Ombudsman dismissed the cases filed by its former executive director Julito Vitriolo against then chairperson Patricia Licuanan, former executive director Karol Mark Yee, and Office of Institutional Quality Assurance and Governance director Luisa Valencia on March 26, for alleged violation of Republic Act 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
In dismissing the charges, Ombudsman Samuel Martires said there is no evidence presented to show that respondents took, misappropriated or consented or through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take the public funds.
Vitriolo, in his complaint, claimed that he was criminally and administratively charged before the Ombudsman and resulted in an administrative sanction of his removal from office and indictment in court.
He also contended that the respondents "acted in conspiracy with each other in causing undue injury to him to the extent of his monthly salaries and benefits, and that the said Ched officials took and embezzled the public funds and gave said amounts to Yee who converted the same to his personal use".
Based on the resolution, the presumption under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code that respondents had put such missing funds or property to personal use cannot be applied.
The salaries and other benefits being claimed by Vitriolo cannot yet be given to him since the Court of Appeals decision has not yet attained finality.
"The collective acts were also supported by legal opinions of Ched Legal and Legislative Service, the Office of the President, and the Office of the Solicitor General, and that the CA decision may not be construed as immediately final and executory pending resolution of the motion for reconsideration before the Supreme Court. As to administrative liability, complainant failed to establish that respondents transgressed and established a definite rule of action, unlawful behavior or gross negligence, Martires said.
Source: Philippines News Agency