MANILA – The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed the dismissal of an official of the Office of the Ombudsman for fixing cases in exchange for money.
In a 26-page decision promulgated April 8, 2024 and posted online on Wednesday, the Court’s 3rd Division upheld the rulings of the Court of Appeals and the Ombudsman, finding Rolando B. Zoleta administratively liable for grave misconduct, serious dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Zoleta was previously the Assistant Ombudsman for Luzon before he was assigned to the Appeals Bureau of the Office of the Special Prosecutor.
In 2017, the Internal Affairs Board - Investigating Staff filed a complaint against Zoleta, alleging that he offered to help facilitate the dismissal of cases against high-ranking officials pending preliminary investigation and administrative adjudication before the Ombudsman-Luzon and the Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices.
The Ombudsman found Zoleta administratively liable and ordered his dismissal from government service. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Ombudsman, prompting Zoleta to file a petition before the SC.
In denying the petition, the high court said Zoleta had the capability and the position to influence cases as he was tasked to handle both trial and appellate work at the Office of the Special Prosecutor.
He also had other related legal duties, such as serving as a member of the Commission on Audit - Ombudsman joint investigation team.
Text messages between Zoleta and Leonardo R. Nicolas Jr., an official of the Intelligence Bureau - Field Investigation Office of the Ombudsman who was arrested in an entrapment operation on July 21, 2017, show that Zoleta actually demanded and received bribe money in exchange for helping and fixing the case.
Copies of documents likewise reflected the actual cases they have purportedly “fixed” for monetary considerations.
The SC found that Zoleta’s corrupt acts “exhibited his lack of morals and constituted dishonest acts so serious they damaged not only the name of the Ombudsman but of public service as well.” (PNA)
