GOVERNMENT lawyers have asked the
Sandiganbayan Fourth Division to affirm its Sept. 9, 2008
decision convicting Oriental Mindoro Reps. Rodolfo G. Valencia
and Alfonso V. Umali and their four co-accused of graft for
alleged illegal disbursement of P2.5 million in public funds for
the repair and operation of a privately-owned ferry boat in
1994.
Rabendranath Uy, acting bureau IV director of
the Office of the Special Prosecutor, and Assistant Special
Prosecutor II Almira A. Abella-Orfanel moved for the dismissal
of the defendants’ motions seeking reversal of the verdict or a
re-opening of the case for new trial.
Valencia and Umali, along with former Vice
Governor Pedrito A. Reyes, former provincial board members Jose
A. Enriquez and Jose G. Leynes and ferry boat owner Alfredo M.
Atienza claimed the P2.5 million loan served a public purpose
because the ferry provided safe and reliable transport for
people and goods at the time when the province needed it badly.
When the loan was approved, Valencia was
governor while Umali was provincial administrator.
The public officials pointed out that two
successive typhoons devastated Mindoro in 1994, causing
waist-high floods and wrecking much of the infrastructure.
Valencia said the calamity killed around 147
of his provincemates and his administration’s handling of the
situation and its prompt response to remedy the situation even
earned the provincial government an award for outstanding
performance from then President Fidel Ramos.
But the accused failed to present their
evidence to bolster this claim due to an apparent oversight by
defense lawyers who filed a demurrer to the prosecution’s
evidence without first seeking leave of court.
Under the rules, filing a demurrer to
evidence without leave of court is tantamount to a waiver of a
party’s right to present evidence hence, the Sandiganbayan
rendered its verdict solely on the basis of the prosecution
evidence.
"Now accused seeks the reopening of the case
allegedly to avoid the miscarriage of justice. There is no
miscarriage of justice here. Accused, with full knowledge of the
consequences of their acts, decided to submit the case based on
the evidence presented by the prosecution clearly believing that
the prosecution was not able to prove its case," Uy and Orfanel
argued. "It must be remembered that the accused were not denied
the opportunity to present their evidence in this case. They
were given the chance to do so but they chose no to avail of
such an opportunity."
All the accused were meted six to 10 years
imprisonment although they were allowed to post P60,000 bail
each for their provisional liberty pending resolution of their
respective appeal.
Uy and Orfanel argued that there is nothing
in the case records to support the defendants’ claim that the
purpose of the loan to Atienza was to provide public transport
to the people.
"The evidence presented proved that the funds
of the Province of Oriental Mindoro were merely used to benefit
the transportation business of accused Atienza, a public
individual. Neither was there any evidence showing that the
transaction redounded to the benefit or advantage of the public.
The truth of the matter was that the government even suffered
damage by virtue of the grant of the said loan as accused
Atienza failed to pay the same and unfortunately, the loan was
not secured (by any collateral)," they pointed out.
Even a resolution by the provincial board approving the loan
to Atienza did not lend legality to the transaction, government
lawyers added. – Peter Tabingo
