TACLOBAN CITY — The Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Lapu-Lapu City has acquitted Tanauan, Leyte Mayor Ma. Gina Merilo of an anti-graft charge over the hiring of two defeated candidates following the 2022 elections, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish her criminal liability beyond reasonable doubt.
In a 25-page decision dated Aug. 11, 2026, RTC Branch 27 Presiding Judge Nelson Leyco found Merilo not guilty of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
The case, filed on September 30,2024, stemmed from Merilo’s approval of the engagement of Quintin Octa Jr. as project engineer and Reynalda Almaden as mobile nurse, effective July 1, 2022, despite both having lost in the May 9, 2022 elections.
The prosecution alleged that the appointments gave the two individuals unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in violation of the constitutional and statutory prohibition against appointing defeated candidates to government positions within one year after an election.
The court acknowledged that Octa and Almaden were losing candidates, that they were engaged by the municipality of Tanauan within the prohibited one-year period, and that Merilo participated in approving their appointments in the performance of her official duties.
However, Judge Leyco ruled that these circumstances, by themselves, were not enough to establish a violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
The prosecution, the court said, still had to prove that Merilo’s actions were attended by manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence, together with the giving of an unwarranted benefit, advantage, or preference.
The court found that the prosecution failed to meet this burden.
According to the decision, there was insufficient evidence to establish that Merilo deliberately hired the two individuals as a reward for their political participation or electoral support, or that the appointments were motivated by corrupt intent, personal enrichment, a fraudulent arrangement, or a deliberate effort to confer unwarranted benefits.
“At most, the evidence establishes that accused Merilo approved the engagement of two losing candidates despite the constitutional and statutory prohibition,” the court said.
It stressed that an alleged violation of the prohibition on appointing defeated candidates does not automatically constitute a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.
The court further explained that while the appointments may have contravened the constitutional and statutory prohibition, a criminal conviction under the anti-graft law requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of all the essential elements of the offense.
Judge Leyco emphasized that any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused and that the prosecution failed to establish every element necessary to sustain Merilo’s conviction.
The court also clarified that her acquittal should not be interpreted as a finding that the appointments were lawful.
“This conclusion should not be understood as a declaration that the subject engagements were lawful. They were not,” the decision stated, while noting that the evidence presented did not meet the higher evidentiary threshold required for a criminal conviction under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
The RTC thus acquitted Merilo of the criminal charge, ruling that her guilt had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The case was filed following allegations that Merilo violated the prohibition against appointing candidates who had lost in the 2022 elections by engaging Octa and Almaden within one year from election day.
(LIZBETH ANN A. ABELLA)
