Former Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon Mark E. Jalandoni and former Assistant Ombudsman Nennette De Padua have been acquitted by the Sandiganbayan of their criminal charges involving the alleged tampering of decisions, resolutions and other documents during their tenure in office.

Jalandoni and De Padua were charged with 56 counts of violations of Article 226 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) on removal, concealment or destruction of documents; and 13 counts of violations of Article 171(6) of the RPC on falsification of public documents.

Prosecutors claimed that Jalandoni signed over documents that were already signed by former Overall Deputy Ombudsman Orlando C. Casimiro and made it appear that Jalandoni, and not Casimiro, was the official authorized to sign and approve the said documents.

During the trial, Administrative Officer Jesus Salvador, who was assigned at the Central Records Division of the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB), testified that the so-called patching or placing a piece of paper over the name of an approving authority was not something unusual at the OMB.

Casimiro himself testified that there were times patching was allowed because the earlier signatories were no longer there or have already resigned. Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer III Judy Anne Doctor-Escalona added that their patching job was "crudely and obviously" done.

In his defense, Jalandoni even said that former Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez had delegated to him the power to "act on" several cases pending before the Ombudsman.

However, neither the prosecution nor defense called Gutierrez to the witness stand, even though the court said her testimony would have been a "welcome development" in these cases.

In its decision, the anti-graft court ruled to acquit Jalandoni and De Padua because they neither removed not destroyed the subject documents. The court said that their actions did not amount to concealment since all they did was "patching."

"Considering the appearance of the patching vis a vis the manner it had been made, I cannot subscribe to the view that the patching had been done to hide the fact that there had been a previous approving authority who signed the order, resolution, or decision," the decision written by Associate Justice Ronald B. Moreno stated.

"At any rate, the State through the prosecution always carries the onus probandi or burden of proof in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt," the decision read. "In the present case, the prosecution failed to overcome the presumption of innocence of Jalandoni and De Padua," it said

The anti-graft court likewise stressed that none of the parties from the 56 action documents complained that they have been prejudiced by the pendency of the said documents.

The court did not reach a unanimous decision in acquitting Jalandoni and Padua.

Moreno, together with Associate Justices Oscar C. Herrera and Edgardo M. Caldona, ruled to acquit Jalandoni and De Pauda. Presiding Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang came out with both concurring and dissenting opinions, while Associate Justice Bernelito R. Fernandez dissented.