Sandiganbayan affirms graft conviction of ex-Pagcor chief Genuino, ex-PSC chair Ramirez

The Sandiganbayan has affirmed the conviction of ex-Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation chief Efraim Genuino and two others over the illegal transfer of P37 million of public funds that is supposed to fund the training of Philippine National Team swimmers.

The anti-graft court, in a 36-page Resolution dated June 8, said the prosecution evidence was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of Genuino, former Philippine Sports Commission (PSC) chief William Ramirez and former Pagcor President Rafael Francisco in the graft charge given that it was undisputed that Pagcor directly released P37 million worth of public funds to Philippine Amateur Swimming Association (PASA) instead to PSC for 18 months in violation of Section 26 of the Republic Act 6847 which explicitly states that "5% of the gross income of Pagcor should be automatically remitted to the PSC."

PASA is the national sports association for swimming under the jurisdiction of PSC.

"This began when PSC Chairman Ramirez wrote a letter addressed to Pagcor Chairman Genuino authorizing Pagcor to deduct from the PSC’s legislated monthly income share the amounts due to PASA for the expenses incurred by the national athletes who are undergoing training. Accused Genuino, Francisco, and Ramirez, acted with manifest partiality and evident bad faith in allowing the direct release of PAGCOR funds to PASA," the Sandiganbayan said.

"The direct release of a portion of the PSC’s share from Pagcor to PASA was illegal as it directly contravened the above-quoted provision of the law As PSC Chairman, Ramirez was expected to be aware of the provisions of the law governing their agency. Worse, he made the request to Pagcor unilaterally since it was made without the approval of the PSC Board of Commissioners," the court added.

The Sandiganbayan said that Genuino and Francisco, on the other hand, actively and indispensably participated in the release of Pagcor funds to PASA.

"They both played a part in approving the release of the PSC’s income share from Pagcor to PASA through their separate individual acts - Francisco and Genuino as members of the Board, in approving the various requests for them payment to PASA to be deducted from the PSC’s monthly income share from Pagcor, while Genuino signed the checks in favor of PASA. Through their concerted acts, they authorized the release of a portion of the PSC’s income share from Pagcor directly to PASA," the Sandiganbayan said.

The anti-graft court also balked at Genuino, Ramirez, and Francisco's assertion of violation of their right to speedy disposition of cases, saying that the COVID-19 pandemic closed courts for nearly two years to prevent virus transmission.

"While the resolution of the present cases took seven years from the time of the filing of the said Informations with the Court, this should not be the sole determinant on whether the accused-movants’ constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases has been violated. Applying settled jurisprudence, the Court holds that the determination of the existence of inordinate delay should not be measured through mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved but the examination of the facts and circumstances surrounding each case," the Sandiganbayan said.

The Sandiganbayan said that courts were only allowed to operate at full capacity in March 2022, and the subject case was resolved within four months since then.

"Plainly, the above-mentioned circumstances all contributed to the time spent by the Court in resolving the present cases. Thus, the said period expended by the Court should not be taken in isolation in determining the existence/non-existence of inordinate delay in this case," the anti-graft court said.

Genuino countered that a side-by-side comparison of the signatures appearing in the said checks issued by Pagcor to PASA vis-d-vis the signatures appearing above his name in the Pagcor board Minutes of the Meeting shows that the said signatures are not the same. Further, Genuino said that Pagcor returned to the PSC the entire amount that it released to PASA which is a "badge of good faith."

Francisco also contended that there was no partiality on his part since the PSC authorized Pagcor to release its 5% share to PASA and that his actions were done in good faith.

Likewise, Francisco, and Ramirez said  there was no undue injury or actual damage to the government or to any third party arising from the questioned disbursements.

The Sandiganbayan, however, was convinced that partiality to PASA was clear since Ramirez failed to show any Board Resolution authorizing Pagcor to release PSC funds directly to PASA in the first place.

"What is most revealing from the records is that no other organization or sports association received such distinct favor from the PSC. Neither did the defense offer any sound or reasonable explanation why this peculiar arrangement was made with PASA and not with the other national sports association," the Sandiganbayan said.

The anti-graft court also said that even defense witness Julia Llanto admitted that there were direct releases of the subject funds to the PASA that were authorized by the concerted acts of Genuino, Ramirez and Francisco and which violated Section 26 of R.A. No. 6847.

In addition, the court said that Llanto also confirmed that there was no PSC Board Resolution which authorized the Pagcor to directly remit the subject funds to the PASA.

"Wherefore, the Court denies the Motion for Reconsideration (on the Decision dated March 3, 2023) dated March 11, 2023, filed by accused Rafael Francisco; Motion for Reconsideration” dated March 15, 2023, filed by accused Efraim C. Genuino; and Motion for Reconsideration to the Decision promulgated on 3 March 2023 dated March 17, 2023, filed by accused William I. Ramirez for lack of merit and for being proforma," the Sandiganbayan said. 

Baler film tickets

Meanwhile, the Sandiganbayan also denied Genuino's bid to reopen the presentation of evidence in the multiple counts of graft and malversation of public funds charges filed against him over Pagcor’s P26.7 million purchase of Baler film tickets with BIDA foundation as beneficiary in 2009 due to lack of merit.

The anti-graft court, in a nine-page Resolution, cited the Supreme Court ruling on the Cabales v. Maceda case which annulled an order of the respondent judge allowing the reopening of the case due to the following reasons:

• The prosecution was given ample opportunity to present all its witnesses but it failed to do so.

• The failure of the prosecution to take full advantage of the opportunities given does not change  the fact that it was accorded such opportunities.

• the prosecution was not deprived of its day in court.

Genuino initially argued that reopening the presentation of evidence is in the paramount interest of justice because of the following reasons:

• His intended testimony is limited to  identifying and/ or proving that the nature of the funds used in the transactions subject of the BIDA cases is not public in  character because these were charged against the Pagcor’s Operating Expenses Fund (OPEX Fund).

• All disbursements for the subject transactions were approved by the Pagcor’s Board  of Directors.

• The subject transactions were part of the Pagcor’s advertising and marketing campaigns, and its Corporate Social  Responsibility programs.

• He did not sign any of the check vouchers and checks presented by the plaintiff in the BIDA cases, among others.

Genuino also invoked the Supreme Court ruling in Republic v. Sandiganbayan wherein the High Court allowed government prosecutors to present additional evidence pursuant to the tenor of Executive Order No. 14 series of 1986 issued by the President and the case of Republic v. Sandiganbayan (Third Division) which states that it is the policy of the court to set aside technicalities and formalities that serve merely to delay or impede the judicial resolution of all cases involving alleged ill-gotten wealth brought by or against the Presidential Commission on Good Government.

The anti-graft court, however, junked these defenses by saying that Genuino himself admitted in his  present motion for reconsideration that he “patiently participated” in every hearing of these cases.

The anti-graft court also stressed that the Republic v. Sandiganbayan is not applicable in Genuino's case.

"Plainly, the factual backdrop of the present cases is materially different from those of the above-mentioned cases; hence, the ruling therein does not find material application here. In sum, accused-movant Genuino failed to raise any new and/or substantial matters that would warrant the grant of his motion for reconsideration," the Sandiganbayan said. —VAL, GMA Integrated News