In the Philippine government's fight against graft and corruption, it can be expected that it will win some and lose some. Interestingly, the anti-graft court Sandiganbayan recently convicted a former town mayor for a P55,000 graft case but acquitted eight former police officials for an alleged P20-million "ghost" purchase of uniform and equipment. The Sandiganbayan acquitted eight former police officials, including a former Philippine National Police (PNP) comptroller, due to weak evidence prepared by the Office of the Ombudsman. The current Ombudsman, Merceditas Gutierrez, is scheduled to face an impeachment trial at the Senate starting on May 9 for alleged betrayal of public trust due to the low conviction rates during her term and her supposed inaction on high-profile cases involving huge amounts of public funds. In a 45-page decision, the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division cited the following reasons for junking the case against the eight former police officials:
the failure of the prosecutors to present to the court the original copies of important documents that were used as evidence, and securing the statements of some of the accused without following the correct procedure. Those who were cleared were: former PNP director for comptrollership Guillermo T. Domondon; Recom 7 Director Roger Deinla; fiscal division chief Van D. Luspo; Recom 7 comptroller Corleto Lopez; Recom 7 finance chief Elpidio Ybañez; deputy ARD comptrollership Jose Beltran, and disbursing officers Benhur Aguinaldo and Florante Leaño. They were charged with the alleged ghost purchase of P20 million worth of uniforms and equipment for police personnel in Central Visayas. A fact-finding team formed by the PNP to look into the transaction had found out that no actual purchase of combat clothing and individual equipment took place. Logistics and supply officers also said they received no such supplies. Failure to reimburse Meanwhile, the Sandiganbayan found a former mayor of Balingoan, Misamis Oriental guilty of failing to liquidate P55,000 in cash he advanced in 2004. In a 36-page decision, Associate Justice Gregory Ong of the anti-graft court's Fourth Division said former Balingoan Mayor Edgar Santos violated Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code on “Failure to Render Accounts." The former mayor was sentenced to a “penalty of 6 months to 1 year imprisonment with all appropriate accessory penalties." “We find the prosecution has convincingly established with proof beyond reasonable doubt that accused Santos is guilty under Article 218 for his failure to render an account insofar as the public funds covered by the cash advance of P55, 000 is concerned," the court said. "Verily, his culpability is established as to warrant his conviction," the court added. The case stemmed from the cash advance made by Santos for his trip to Manila from February 13 to 20 in 2004. However, he “refused" to liquidate his expenses within the 30-day allowable period as prescribed under Commission on Audit (COA) Circular No. 97-002. Based on Santos’ “Itinerary of Travel," he returned to Misamis Oriental from Manila on February 21, 2004 and his deadline for liquidating the cash advances was on March 22 that same year. The Sandiganbayan decision on the mayor's case was promulgated on March 28 and news about the decision was posted by the Office of the Ombudsman on its website on Thursday. "Weak" evidence In its decision on the case of the eight police officials, the Sandiganbayan said prosecutors from the Office of the Ombudsman failed to present the original copies of the 407 checks issued from August 11 to 14, 1992. The court said these checks were the crucial evidence in identifying the payees and the negotiation for encashment. What the prosecutors presented were microfilm copies of the checks that were authenticated by an officer of the Land Bank of the Philippines, the court said. Although this proved the existence of the checks, it was insufficient in substantiating the contents, including the name of the payees and those who converted them to cash, the court added. “Notably, the prosecution is aware of the importance of the originals of the checks for it requested the Court to issue a subpoena…for the production of the checks to court. If despite having asked for it to be produced in court, it proved futile or could not have been done for one reason or another, the prosecution should have called the present accountant or any representatives from said office to explain why it cannot be produced," the Sandiganbayan said. “(S)econdary evidence as to the checks is not admissible. The Court must say that after a careful perusal of the facts of the case and the evidence presented, the guilt of the accused has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt," the court added. The court also faulted investigators for failure to observe the correct procedures in securing the statement of accused. Prosecutors asked Deinla, Aguinaldo, Ybañes and Leaño to give their statements without the assistance of a counsel. “The right to counsel is a fundamental right and requires not merely the fact that a lawyer is beside the accused during investigation. Though the same may be waived, waiver must be done in the presence of a lawyer," the court noted. Associate Justice Napoleon E. Inoturan penned the Sandiganbayan ruling, which was concurred in by Associate Justices Alexander G. Gesmundo and Roland B. Jurado, division chairman. Ombudsman's impeachment Gutierrez was appointed as Ombudsman by former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo in 2005. On March 22, the House of Representatives approved the articles of impeachment to bring Gutierrez to trial at the Senate for her alleged betrayal of public trust. In a 212-46 vote with four abstentions, the lawmakers impeached Gutierrez for alleged betrayal of public trust due to the low conviction rates during her term and her supposed inaction on high-profile cases. The approved articles of impeachment states the following impeachable offenses which Gutierrez allegedly committed: (1) under Gutierrez, the Office of the Ombudsman has performed dismally as shown by the office’s low conviction rate; (2) the unreasonable failure to take prompt and immediate action on complaints filed against various public officials, including former President and now incumbent Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her husband Jose Miguel Arroyo regarding the National Broadband Network (NBN)-ZTE project; (3) the inexcusable delay of the Ombudsman in conducting and concluding its investigation into the wrongful death of Ensign Philip Andrew Pestaño aboard a Philippine navy vessel; (4) inaction in the matter of the Fertilizer Fund Scam; (5) inaction in the matter of the Mega Pacific deal on automated polls machines; and (6) inaction in the matter of the “Euro Generals" issue. - with Mark Merueñas/Andreo Calonzo, VVP, GMA News 
GMA Brandtalk
Tracking
Archives
