SC acquits ex-PRA officials in P1.1-B road case

The Supreme Court has acquitted former officials of the Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA), formerly the Public Estates Authority (PEA), in connection with the P1.1-billion construction of the Diosdado Macapagal Boulevard.

In a 69-page decision, the Second Division granted a consolidated petition and acquitted Cristina Amposta-Mortel, Theron Victor Lacson, Leo Padilla, Manuel Beriña Jr., Jaime Millan, Bernardo Viray, Raphael Pocholo Zorilla, Daniel Dayan, Frisco Francisco San Juan, El Pidio Damaso, Carmelita Cahn, and private individual Jesusito Legaspi on the ground of reasonable doubt.

The petition assailed a 2015 decision and resolution of the Sandiganbayan that found them guilty of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

They were initially sentenced to imprisonment of up to eight years and ordered to jointly and severally reimburse the government the amount of over P173 million.

Following the acquittal, the Supreme Court ordered the civil liability to be deleted.

“Here, there was no undue injury to the government or any party, or any unwarranted benefit that was proven by the prosecution,” the SC said.

“The government cannot be said to have suffered an actual loss since there was no showing that it had to perform acts prejudicial to its interest that would pertain to the loan obtained by PEA, or to the construction of the President Diosdado Macapagal Boulevard,” it added.

The court further said that the project resulted in a benefit in favor of the government.

“To the contrary, the timely completion of the project resulted into a benefit in favor of the government with the increase in value of the land surrounding the area, as well as the public who continue to reap the benefits of having alternate routes that would let them avoid traffic congestion,” it said.

Meanwhile, in its ruling, the Sandiganbayan also flagged the PEA order issued to JD Legaspi Construction for the construction of the Inland Channel Bridge and the Seaside Drive Extension, saying it was not part of JD Legaspi’s original contract.

However, the SC said a project may be awarded to the same contractor who was awarded an ongoing project under a negotiated contract.

“Considering that JD Legaspi was awarded with the main contract, there is nothing irregular for the petitioners, believing in good faith, as to the applicability of the rules on negotiated contracts, to award the Seaside Drive Extension to JD Legaspi,” it said.

“Thus, there was no unwarranted benefit that favored JD Legaspi in the award of the Seaside Drive Extension,” it added.

The decision was promulgated on February 8 but released only recently. —KG, GMA Integrated News