MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court has affirmed the dismissal of a former local official of the Office of the Ombudsman who was accused of accepting bribes to manipulate case outcomes.
In a 26-page decision promulgated in April and only released on Wednesday, the high court’s third division found Rolando Zoleta, who worked as an assistant ombudsman for Luzon, guilty of grave misconduct, serious dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Complaint and initial ruling. The case stemmed from a complaint in 2017 that accused Zoleta of facilitating the dismissal of cases against high-ranking government officials before the Office of the Ombudsman in Luzon and the Ombudsman for the Military and other Law Enforcement Offices.
In January 2018, the Ombudsman found Zoleta liable and meted him a penalty of dismissal from service.
Appeals process. Zoleta filed a motion for reconsideration with the Ombudsman, which was denied in May 2018. He then elevated the case before the Court of Appeals, claiming that the Ombudsman committed an error in finding him liable.
However, in January 2021, the appellate court denied his petition, noting that Zoleta did not submit a counter-affidavit to put up his defense against the charges, instead submitting a manifestation showing his length of service, awards, recognition and medical condition.
Supreme Court decision
Following the appellate court’s denial of his appeal, Zoleta filed another plea before the Supreme Court.
The high court determined that the evidence convincingly demonstrated Zoleta’s involvement in corrupt activities, noting his position of authority and influence over cases due to his responsibilities in both trial and appellate work at the Office of the Special Prosecutor, as well as his other legal duties.
The court also noted that verified text messages between Zoleta and a detained official of the Ombudsman’s Intelligence Bureau-Field Investigation Office indicated that Zoleta solicited and accepted bribes to manipulate cases, with document copies revealing the specific cases they allegedly “fixed” for financial gain.
The high court stressed that Zoleta’s actions demonstrated moral depravity and constituted serious dishonest acts that tarnished the reputation of the Office of the Ombudsman and the public service.
The court’s decision read, “His misconduct is connected with the performance of his official functions as Assistant Ombudsman, a position subjected to a high standard of integrity and accountability. There is, indeed, a nexus between the acts complained of and the discharge of his duties.”
Be the first to comment