The Supreme Court has affirmed the dismissal of Rolando Zoleta who previously worked as Assistant Ombudsman for Luzon for fixing cases of government officials in exchange for money.

In a decision of the 3rd Division promulgated on April 8, 2024, the court upheld the rulings of the Court of Appeals and the Ombudsman finding Zoleta administratively liable for Grave Misconduct, Serious Dishonesty, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.

Following his assignment as Assistant Ombudsman for Luzon, Zoleta was assigned at the Appeals Bureau of the Office of the Special Prosecutor.                                                      

In 2017, the Internal Affairs Board-Investigating Staff (IAB-IS) filed a complaint against Zoleta for offering to help facilitate the dismissal of cases against high-ranking officials pending before the Ombudsman-Luzon and the Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices.

The SC noted that Zoleta was the supposed contact of another Ombudsman official who was arrested in an entrapment operation over a P3 million extortion attempt in Pangasinan.

In denying the petition for certiorari of Zoleta, the Supreme Court found that the evidence, including his personal mobile phone, sufficiently proved that he engaged in corrupt acts.

“After a careful review of the records of the case, this Court resolves to deny the Petition for Review on Certiorari,” the SC said in the decision penned by Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan.

The court noted that in his defense, Zoleta argued that he was denied due process by the Ombudsman and his right to privacy was violated when his personal mobile phone number was used during the investigation.

The court however said Zoleta's personal information was lawfully processed as it was done in relation to an administrative investigation by the Ombudsman.

Zoleta also argued that the related criminal case against him was dismissed but the Supreme Court said it has no bearing on his pending administrative case.

“As to the penalty imposed, the CA is correct in finding that the penalty of dismissal was proper,” the SC said.