By CESAR JOLITO III
The Office of the Ombudsman has dismissed the criminal and administrative complaints of grave misconduct and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act 3019) filed against former La Castellana Mayor Alme Rhummyla Nicor Mangilimutan, citing lack of substantial evidence and lack of probable cause.
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by Elvin dela Fuente, who alleged that two women — Maricel Madrigal and Jocelyn Magbanua — were employed as Mangilimutan’s household helper and laundrywoman while also serving as job order employees under the municipal government’s Clean and Green Program, allegedly receiving government salaries.
According to Ombudsman records, the claims of Dela Fuente were supported by the written statements of Madrigal and Magbanua.
In her counter-affidavit, Mangilimutan, who currently serves as La Castellana vice mayor, denied the allegations, calling them “untrue and politically motivated.”
She maintained that the complaint was meant to harass her, noting that Dela Fuente was her political rival in the May 2025 elections for the same post.
Mangilimutan described the statements of Madrigal and Magbanua as “lies,” asserting that she never employed them as household staff.
She clarified that they were legitimately hired by the municipal government for one month, from March 11 to April 15, 2020, as part of the Clean and Green Program, and were compensated accordingly by the municipality.
She admitted, however, that she had personally paid Madrigal for massage services and Magbanua for occasional laundry work, explaining that both women offered their services privately and needed extra income to support their families.
In its ruling, the Ombudsman emphasized that “mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof,” adding that the charges were “based on mere suspicion and speculation, which should not be given credence.”
The decision stated that when a complainant relies only on conjecture and fails to substantiate claims with concrete evidence, the complaint must be dismissed for lack of merit.
The Ombudsman further ruled that the administrative complaint for grave misconduct, which was tied to the same allegations, also “must fail” as there was no substantial evidence proving any intent by Mangilimutan to commit wrongdoing or to act in flagrant disregard of existing laws.
For these reasons, both the administrative complaint for grave misconduct and the criminal complaint for violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act 3019 were dismissed by the Ombudsman for lack of substantial evidence and probable cause./CJ, WDJ