Metro Manila (CNN Philippines) — A former Speaker of the House faces charges for misusing nearly 48 million pesos (US$960,000) in pork barrel funds, the Office of the Ombudsman saidTuesday.
Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales ordered the filing of three graft cases and three malversation cases against Prospero Nograles, her office said in a statement.
“Nograles is set to face trial for three counts of violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019), one count of Malversation and two counts of Malversation thru Falsification of Public Documents,” it said.
The cases stem from the allegedly anomalous use of P47.5 million in Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) to fund livelihood projects of ineligible non-government organizations (NGOs) from 2007 to 2009. Nograles served as caretaker of the 1st district of Misamis Oriental after Representative Danilo Lagbas died in 2008.
“The chosen NGOs could not qualify for the grant of government funds since they failed to strictly comply with all the requirements needed in order to be considered eligible to implement government-funded projects,” the Ombudsman said.
These four NGOs selected by Lagbas and Nograles were identified as Kabuhayan at Kalusugan Alay sa Masa Foundation, Inc., Kasangga sa Magandang Bukas Foundation, Inc., Gabay at Pag-asa ng Masa Foundation, Inc., and the Buhay Mo Mahal Ko Foundation, Inc., the Ombudsman said.
The funds to these NGOs were to be coursed through the implementing government agencies National Agribusiness Corporation, the Technology Resource Center, and the National Livelihood Development Corporation, it added.
Nograles was liable because he “continued what had been started by Congressman Lagbas by signing the letter-request to NLDC for the immediate release of the PDAF allocation of P10,000,000.00,” to the Kabuhayan at Kalusugan Alay sa Masa Foundation, Inc. Nograles also signed the memorandum of agreement between the NGO and the National Livelihood Development Corporation.
Nograles denied the allegations of malversation on Tuesday, saying these were “based on spurious documents and mismatched timelines.”
Ombudsman: Beneficiaries got nothing
Upon further investigation, the Ombudsman found that many of the beneficiaries of the projects under these four NGOs denied receiving technology kits/materials, grafted seedlings, hand tractors and water pumps. The reported projects were also supported by questionable and spurious documents.
In addition, third-party suppliers denied providing farm equipment or issuing any invoices and receipts for the projects.
The Ombudsman also found from documents and testimonies that Lagbas and Nograles not only proposed, selected and identifed the programs to be funded with the PDAF, “but also directly participated and intervened in the various phases of the project implementation.”
Morales also directed that copies of the Resolution be given to the Anti-Money Laundering Council for its immediate action on possible violations by the respondents of the Anti-Money Laundering Act.
Also included in the charge sheet as co-accused are Nograles’s then chief of staff Jennifer Karen Lagbas and chief public affairs officer Danilo Jamito, and 23 officers from the three implementing government agencies.
Nograles refutes Ombudsman’s evidence
The former speaker of the house said they will fight the allegations in the Sandiganbayan.
“I have not received a copy of the decision of the Ombudsman but nonetheless we are preparing our motion for reconsideration hoping that the body would go the extra mile to study the authenticity of their documents,” said Nograles in a statement issued by the office of his son, Representative Karlo Nograles.
“We still have a lot of legal remedies but we are also ready to fight this all-out before the Sandiganbayan. The Ombudsman is losing a lot of cases because they seem to lack the patience and the diligence to study their cases,” he added.
Nograles said he did not receive or facilitate the release of any PDAF for the 1st district of Misamis Oriental while he was acting as caretaker, arguing that he had no administrative control over the day-to-day operation of the office.
