Ex-BOC exec asks Sandiganbayan to reverse ruling on falsification case 

The former head of the Bureau of Customs (BOC) Intelligence and Investigation Service Filomeno Vicencio, Jr. has asked the Sandiganbayan to reverse its ruling finding him guilty of falsification and sentencing him to a maximum of six years in prison.
 

In a nine-page motion for reconsideration submitted to the Sandiganbayan First Division, Vicencio said he is innocent and that the evidence presented by the prosecution was not strong enough to warrant his conviction.

“With all due respect to the Honorable Court, the Decision needs to be reconsidered as there are serious errors of facts and law that were committed by the Honorable Court in its resolution of the case,” Vicencio said in his motion.

 

In a ruling handed down April 20, 2015, the First Division sentenced Filomeno to a minimum of six months and one day up to a maximum of six years and one day of imprisonment for submitting a falsified Personal Data Sheet (PDS) in June 2009.

 

The court’s ruling said the prosecution was able to present witnesses and documents that proved that Vicencio was never a student nor a graduate of the University of the East as stated in his PDS.

 

The court said there was evident bad faith on the part of Vicencio in submitting his falsified PDS since being a college graduate was among the requirements for the position of Director III.

 

In his motion for reconsideration, Vicencio, however, pointed out that he was not aware of the erroneous information in his PDS when he signed it as the PDS was filled up by his son much later after he affixed his signature on the form.

 

“With all due respect, one could only assent to something if that is known to him and not when the same is not yet known or disclosed to him. In the case of the accused, and contrary to the findings of the Honorable Court, it could not be possible that the Accused had assented to the alleged falsities in his PDS considering that he signed the questioned PDS before the alleged falsified entries were made by his son,” Vicencio’s motion read.

 

Vicencio said two of their witnesses have testified on this fact during the hearings, but the court refused to give credence on their testimonies after they admitted that at the time of the alleged commission of the crime, they were personally employed by Vicencio.

 

“The court should scrutinize and consider the testimonies objectively and not be easily swayed by the propositions that the testimonies lack credibility because of the relationship of the accused with the witnesses,” Vicencio said in his motion.

 

Vicencio also questioned the court’s “selective” admission of the testimonies of the witnesses of the defense, maintaining that the court must consider the testimonies of the witnesses in their entirety and not only those parts of the testimonies that would constitute conviction.

 

“It was through the testimonies of the witnesses for the accused that the Honorable Court found that it was the accused who placed his signature in his PDS. No prosecution witness testified on this matter, not even was there evidence presented that the signature appearing in the PDS of the accused appears to be the signature of the accused,” Vicencio said.

“Without giving weight and credit to the testimonies of the witnesses for the accused, there is therefore no basis for the Honorable Court to find that it was the accused who signed the PDS in question…the test of credibility should not be selective,” Vicencio said. - JJ, GMA News