Bohol Rep. Yap seeks dismissal of graft case over car loan mess

Bohol Representative Arthur Yap has sought for the dismissal of his graft case in connection with the alleged irregular car loan plans given to the board of trustees of the Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice) from 2008 to 2009.

"Wherefore, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the informations in these criminal cases be quashed, and the charges against Mr. Yap accordingly dismissed," Yap said in his quashal motion filed with the Sandiganbayan.

Yap, through his lawyers, reiterated his absence at the PhilRice board meeting when the car plan and loan guidelines were discussed. Yap chaired the PhilRice board when he was secretary of the Department of Agriculture.

He said his absence at the meeting should be a ground for the dismissal of the case since the Office of the Ombudsman dropped Remedios de Leon as one of the respondents due to her absence in the same meeting.

"The Ombudsman dropped the charges against Mrs. de Leon because her absence (during the 54th meeting) showed her non-participation in the offense charged. However, despite this similar absence at said crucial meeting, the charges against Mr. Yap were unreasonably sustained," Yap said.

The Ombudsman charged Yap with one count each of violation of Sections 3(e) and 3(g) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

The case stemmed when the PhilRice board allegedly conspired with one another when they favored 10 beneficiary-employees for the institute's car plan, which allowed them to obtain personal loans from the Philippine National Bank (PNB) for the purchase of private cars.

The cars were then leased to PhilRice for the employees' official use, despite the fact that they supposedly continue to receive transportation allowances.

Yap said the Ombudsman may have perceived that he was present during the board meeting because he was not listed neither "present" nor "absent" in the list of supposed attendees.

"The Ombudsman might have maintained the charges against Mr. Yap for the simple reason that his name was not among those stated to be absent during the 54th meeting. In fact, Mr. Yap was not listed at all in the said minutes," Yap said.

"At any rate, the Ombudsman actually knew that Mr. Yap was absent during the 54th meeting. There was absolutely no mention at all of Mr. Yap's name or presence threat. There is, therefore, no dispute as to Mr. Yap's absence during said meeting," he added.

The lawmaker also said there was no proof that he entered any contract or transaction on behalf of PhilRice, saying he had no participation in the agreements with PNB.

Yap further said his case should be dismissed due to inordinate delay for the Ombudsman's six-year preliminary investigation. —KBK, GMA News