Ombudsman Recommends Preventive

Suspension of a Customs Operation Officer

The Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman)in its recent Order recommends the preventive suspension of Ma. Teresa Roman Aggabao, Customs Operation Officer V of the Bureau of Customs (BOC), pending investigation by the Ombudsman of the case filed against her by the Department of Finance-Revenue Integrity Protection Service (DOF-RIPS) for alleged violation of Section 7 of Republic Act 3019, Section 8 of Republic Act 6713, Articles 171 and 183 of the Revised Penal Code, Grave Misconduct, Serious Dishonesty, and reasonable office rules and regulations.

Under Section of RA 6770, “the Ombudsman or his Deputy may preventively suspend any officer or employee under his authority pending an investigation, if in his judgment the evidence of guilt is strong, and (a) the charge against such officer or employee involves dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty; (b) the charges would warrant removal from the service; or (c) the respondent’s continued stay in office may prejudice the case filed against him.”

In its Order, the Ombudsman found enough evidence warranting the imposition of the preventive suspension. It explained that the DOF-RIPS presented evidence showing that respondent Aggabao did not declare her property in Pasay City in her 2004 Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN). According to her 2005 SALN, she acquired the said real property in 2004. The Ombudsman also cited the DOF-RIPS findings that respondent and her daughter allegedly purchased a lot in Barrio Molino, Bacoor, Cavite, worth four hundred thousand pesos in November 20, 2010. However, at that time, respondent’s daughter was only seventeen years old and had no clear source of income. The said Molino property was not declared in her 2010, 2011 and 2012 SALN.

Aside from the above-cited real estate property, respondent allegedly did not declare two firearms in her 2012 and 2013 SALN when these were purportedly acquired in 2012.

The Anti-Graft Body has cited documents from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), showing respondent’s supposed failure to declare her and her husband’s business interests in TEN55 Corporation and Aressa Food Products, respectively. Based on the SEC records, TEN55 Corporation was issued a SEC Certificate of Incorporation on September28, 2012, but respondent did not declare the same in her 2012 and 2013 SALN; while Aressa Food Products was registered with the DTI on February 17, 2011, but she did not declare the same in her 2011, 2012, and 2013 SALN.

The Ombudsman also mentioned the records found by DOF-RIPS from the Bureau of Immigration (BI) showing discrepancies in respondent’s travels abroad vis-à-vis the travel authorities found in the records of the DOF Central Records Management Division. Apparently, the DOF Central Records Management Division has eleven records of travel authorities issued to respondent from 2002 to 2013, but the BI records showed respondent doing sixteen trips abroad from 2000 to 2014, which may make her liable for violation of Executive Order No. 6, series of 1986, requiring all public officials and employees to obtain travel authorities for travels abroad.

The Order also stated the Ombudsman’s observation that there were substantial increases in respondent’s net worth for years 1999, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2012. Examination of the records seems to indicate that respondent may have accumulated wealth disproportionate to her lawful income, considering that her annual incomes from the cited years do not support the significant increases in her net worth and that there is no indication that her husband was gainfully employed.

While the Ombudsman has issued the recommendation for the respondent’s preventive suspension, the said recommendation is merely a preliminary step in an investigation and is not in any way the final determination of the guilt of the official concerned. The suspension is only to prevent an official from using his office to intimidate or influence witnesses or to tamper with records that might be vital to the prosecution of the case against him.