In a 36-page decision issued on Dec. 9, 2022, Associate Justice Michael Frederick Musngi said they acquitted Gica of the charges filed against him for violating Republic Act (RA) 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, falsification of public documents and malversation of public funds after the Ombudsman, who served as prosecution, failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Aside from acquitting Gica, the anti-graft court also ordered that the hold departure order against him be lifted and set aside while the bail bond he filed before the court be released.
The cases filed against Gica stemmed from a complaint filed against him by the late former Dumanjug mayor Nelson Garcia in 2014.
In a statement posted on his Facebook page on the same day, Gica said he was happy that he was finally vindicated of the charges against him.
“I cannot thank God enough for my acquittal in all the charges filed against me. This acquittal inspires me more to work harder for the betterment of my constituents in my beloved hometown of Dumanjug. Though I, my family, my parents and siblings suffered a lot from my ordeal, yet, my resolve to serve to the best of my abilities the people of Dumanjug did not diminish. I may have been pilloried in public, especially in social media. The past is past,” Gica said.
Ruling
In his decision, Musngi said he and fellow Associate Justices Lorifel Lacap Pahimna and Bayani Jacinto decided to acquit Gica after finding that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of all elements that would determine that there was probable cause to sue the incumbent mayor.
According to the decision, the prosecution failed to establish the legal requirements that would determine that Gica had violated RA 3019 and committed falsification and malversation of public funds.
As to whether Gica committed falsification when he tampered with the receipts, the anti-graft court said the prosecution failed to present witnesses, particularly the branch manager of the restaurant where the alleged crime took place, to prove that the incumbent mayor had falsified the receipts.
As to whether Gica should be dismissed for violating RA 3019, the anti-graft court said the prosecution failed to determine if Gica had committed bad faith, which is one of the elements that must be established beyond reasonable doubt.
“As the prosecution in this case failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of Section 3 (e) of RA No. 3019 under which the accused (Gica) was charged, he should be entitled to an acquittal,” the anti-graft court added.
Garcia sued Gica, who was the acting mayor of the town, before the Ombudsman over allegations that Gica tampered with a restaurant receipt for P11,435 to bloat the amount to P21,435.
In April 2017, the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas ordered Gica’s dismissal after finding probable cause to charge him with the cases filed against him.
But a month later, the Ombudsman reinstated Gica to his post because the Ombudsman had issued the April 2017 resolution and decision to dismiss him without considering his defense.
Eight months later, the Ombudsman again issued another order dismissing Gica with finality.
In 2018, Gica filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals in Manila for a review of his dismissal. He also asked the court for a writ of preliminary injunction or, at least, a temporary restraining order.