Gov’t seeks Gwen Garcia’s suspension for graft

Rappler.com

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

A prosecutor says the suspension of a public official charged in court for graft is mandatory under the law

ANOTHER SUSPENSION? File photo of suspended Cebu governor, and incoming 3rd district congresswoman, Gwendolyn Garcia  

MANILA, Philippines –  Government prosecutors filed on Wednesday, June 5, a motion asking the graft court to suspend outgoing Cebu Gov Gwendolyn Garcia in connection with 3 criminal charges pending against her.

Prosecution Bureau III acting director Manuel Soriano said Garcia, who is also the incoming congresswoman of the province’s 3rd district, pleaded “not guilty” to the charges during her arraignment before the Sandiganbayan Second Division last March 22.

She may therefore be deemed to have admitted the validity of the information, the prosecutor said.

Garcia was indicted on two counts of graft and one malversation charge in connection with the purchase of the 24.92-hectare property known as the Balili Estate for P98.93 million in 2008.

Named co-defendants were Sangguniang Panlalawigan member Juan Bolo, Provincial Budget Officer Emme T. Gingoyon, Provincial Appraisal Committee chairman and Provincial Assessor Anthony D. Sususco, Provincial Treasurer Roy G. Salubre, OIC Provincial Engineer Eulogio B. Pelayre, and private defendants Romeo and Amparo Balili.

They were accused of conspiracy in binding the provincial government in a “grossly disadvantageous” transaction, causing it undue injury and unlawfully diverting P49,849,200 from the province’s Social Services fund allocations to partly pay for the land acquisition.

Prosecutors said 19.67 hectares of the property was found to be submerged in water. The accused public officials approved the acquisition despite lack of a physical survey.

Soriano said that the suspension of a public official charged in court for graft is mandatory under Section 13 of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

“Aforesaid provision is unequivocal and mandatory as held [by the Supreme Court] in many cases,” he pointed out. He cited the high court’s pronouncements in the case of Socrates vs. Sandiganbayan. – Rappler.com 

 

Add a comment

Sort by

There are no comments yet. Add your comment to start the conversation.

Summarize this article with AI

How does this make you feel?

Loading
Download the Rappler App!