SC affirms graft, malversation charge vs. 3 ex-cops

The Supreme Court has affirmed resolutions that found probable cause to file graft and malversation charges against three former members of the Philippine National Police (PNP) in connection with the “ghost repairs” of light armored vehicles (LAVs) amounting to P409.7 million.

In a 26-page decision promulgated on July 25, the First Division rejected the petitions filed by former Bids and Awards Committee members Rainier Espina, Henry Duque, and Eulito Fuentes for lack of merit.

The petitions sought to overturn the December 2012, January 2013, and July 2013 resolutions issued by the Office of the Ombudsman that found probable cause to charge the petitioners before the Sandiganbayan.

“As the court is not a trier of facts, we shall defer to the findings of the Ombudsman absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion,” the SC said.

“All told, the Court finds that there is no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman in finding probable cause against the petitioners,” it added.

In its December 2012 resolution, the Ombudsman found probable cause against Espina, Duque, and Fuentes for violation of Republic Act (RA) 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, RA 9184 or the Government Procurement Act, and the Revised Penal Code.

The Ombudsman found probable cause against Duque in relation to the purchase of 40 tires, and against Espina for the repair and maintenance of 28 LAVs, and the disbursement and expenditure of the transportation and delivery expenses of the LAVs.

In its January 2013 supplemental joint resolution, the Ombudsman found substantial evidence against Fuentes for grave misconduct and serious dishonesty with his participation in the repair of the LAVs.

Meanwhile, the Ombudsman in its July 2013 order, denied the motion for reconsideration filed by Duque and granted Espina and Fuentes’ motions, thereby setting aside the charge against them for violation of RA 9184 for violation of RA 3019 and Malversation of Public Funds through Falsification.

This led the three former cops to file their petitions before the Supreme Court.

However, the Supreme Court did not give weight to the argument of the petitioners that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed resolutions.

According to the Supreme Court, its jurisdiction over decisions of the Ombudsman is limited to the criminal and not the administrative aspect of the case.

“We have since stressed that all remedies involving the orders, directives, or decisions of the Ombudsman must first be filed with the CA in observance of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts,” it said.

The SC also denied their arguments that their right to due process was violated, saying that the requirement of due process is satisfied when respondents are given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

According to Duque, he was denied due process since he was deprived of his right to file a counter-affidavit during the preliminary investigation since he never received the order to do so.

However, the Court said Duque had already exercised his right to be heard when he filed his motion for reconsideration as he had already been given the opportunity to give his side.

The Court also denied Fuentes' argument that he was denied due process when the Ombudsman denied his request for forensic examination to establish forgery of his signatures.

For the SC, the findings on the issue of forgery should be done in a “full-blown trial.”

“Thus, while Fuentes should rightfully be given the opportunity to substantiate his defense of forgery, the best avenue for him to assail the genuineness of the signatures in the purported documents is during his turn to present evidence in court, where there is an opportunity for the presentation and cross-examination of an expert witness and an independent examination by the judge,” it said.

Meanwhile, Espina said his right was violated as he was never furnished a copy of the report of the Commission on Audit.

However, the Court said that records show that Espina had a copy of the inspection reports containing his signature, which he attached in his motion.—AOL, GMA Integrated News