The Office of the Ombudsman has dismissed another criminal and administrative case filed against Baguio City Mayor Benjamin Magalong over the purchase of land in 2023 valued at P95 million in Topinao, Tuba, Benguet.

The case for violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019) was filed by former City Councilor Maria Mylen Victoria G. Yaranon.

Magalong on July 9 was cleared of criminal and administrative complaints filed by Yaranon in April 2024 over the P50-million government-funded infrastructure project in the Irisan Barangay Complex.

Two days later, Magalong received the Ombudsman’s 19-page joint resolution acquitting him of the graft case.

The Ombudsman found no solid evidence to hold him accountable for administrative charges of grave misconduct, grave abuse of authority, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and violation of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (RA 6713).

In January 2023, Yaranon accused Magalong of entering into a Deed of Absolute Sale for the acquisition of two parcels of land from William U. Tan Jr. and his daughter Hazel Dominique Tan without prior authorization from the City Council.

The lots, totaling more than 63,000-square meters, were purchased by the city for P95,377,500 to be developed into a low-cost housing project by the city government.

The land was paid for within 13 days despite an offer from the sellers allowing a staggered payment scheme.

The complainant argued that paying the full amount gave the sellers an undue advantage and denied the city the potential interest in the funds.

Yaranon also raised issues with the purchased site, located on a slope, the lack of a seismic study and public bidding, and questions about the property’s inclusion in the city’s development plans.

The Ombudsman ruled that Magalong was indeed a public official performing official duties and the other elements required to establish criminal liability under Section 3(e) of RA 3019 – manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence — were not sufficiently proven.

“There is no probable cause to impeach the respondent,” the Ombudsman stated.

The Ombudsman said that existing ordinances already authorized the city’s land banking and housing programs, and that a separate resolution for the contract was not necessary under those circumstances.

Administrative complaints were also dismissed due to lack of solid evidence.