Ombudsman blocks ex-Batangas Gov. Tony Leviste’s bid to dismiss malversation

The Office of the Ombudsman on Thursday opposed the motion of former Batangas governor Jose Antonio “Tony” Leviste to dismiss his malversation case for supposed lack of evidence.

In a three-page opposition paper filed before the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division, the Ombudsman, through its prosecutorial arm Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), said Leviste’s motion for judicial determination of probable cause with a prayer for the dismissal of the case, must not be entertained by the court.

The OSP pointed out that in its May 30, 2016 ruling, the Fifth Division has already ruled that probable cause exists to hold Leviste and his co-accused, Philip John Moreno, on trial.

“After perusing the information and carefully assessing the resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman, the evidence in support thereof and the records of the preliminary investigation attached thereto, the Court finds that sufficient grounds exists for the finding of probable cause for the purpose of issuing warrant of arrest in this case,” the OSP said, quoting the court’s May 30 ruling.

However, Leviste and Moreno, former Financial Planning and Control Division chief of the Philippine Retirement Authority (PRA), have posted bail even before the ruling was promulgated, thus the arrest warrant was no longer issued.

Filed by the Office of the Ombudsman on May 24, the case stemmed from Leviste’s alleged failure to liquidate cash advances amounting to P151,385 for his supposed foreign travels during his term as the chairman of the PRA in 2003.

The Ombudsman said Leviste failed to liquidate the cash advances allegedly incurred from May to December 2003, despite repeated demands by the PRA and the Commission on Audit (COA).

In his 12-page omnibus motion filed before the Fifth Division on Monday, Leviste, through his legal counsels, said the Ombudsman lacked evidence to establish probable cause for the filing of the alleged crime.

“Accused Leviste stands before the Honorable Court professing that he was charged without the requisite evidence to establish probable cause,” Leviste’s motion read.

Leviste said the Ombudsman failed to present proof that he received the alleged cash advances.

He claimed that the signature in one disbursement voucher was not his, while some vouchers did not bear any signature of claimants at all.

“Therefore, there is no proof on record that he had custody of the said funds,” Leviste’s motion read.

With regard to a cash advance voucher bearing his signature, specifically for a trip to Japan from October 24 to 29, 2003, Leviste claimed that this was already liquidated as proven by a letter provided by the PRA in 2014.

In its opposition paper, however, the OSP said the arguments raised by Leviste in his motion were matters that are best thresh out during trial.

“Anent the other grounds raised by accused-movant Leviste, these are already matters of defense that could only be threshed out in a full-blown trial,” the prosecution said.

“It would be premature and hasty to pray for the dismissal of this subject criminal case when the arguments of the accused could be determined only after trial of the merits,” it added.

Leviste’s arraignment for the case is set on July 6 while Moreno had earlier entered a “not guilty” plea. —KBK, GMA News