Sandiganbayan junks graft case vs. Alberto Agra

The Sandiganbayan has junked the graft case against former Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA) Chairman and ex-Justice Secretary Alberto Agra due to "insufficient evidence."

The case was over the alleged unlawful execution of a 2021 memorandum of agreement between the PRA and the City of Bacoor in 2021 covering reclamation projects in Bacoor Bay.

In a June 5 Resolution, the Sandiganbayan Third Division granted Agra’s demurrer to evidence by citing that Agra was a mere witness, not an approving authority, to the signing of the three MOAs that allowed the reclamation witness projects to proceed despite the existing right of first refusal of Cavitex Holdings, Inc. (CHI) and the Cavite provincial government provided under the 1994 joint venture agreement between PRA, Majlis Amanah Rakyat (MARA), and Renong Berhad (Renong).

A demurrer to evidence is a pleading filed by the accused asking the court to dismiss the charge due to the prosecution’s weak evidence.

“The prosecution failed to prove that Agra represented, directed, or instructed the execution of the questioned MOAs as alleged in the information. The evidence showed that the agreements were executed by Atty. Janilo Rubiato, then General Manager of PRA, pursuant to resolutions passed by the Board of Directors of PRA, while Agra signed only as a witness,” the anti-graft court said.

“Further, no evidence was presented establishing that Agra instructed the Board of Directors to enter into or execute the MOAs,” the anti-graft court added.

Sandiganbayan Third Division chairperson and Associate Justice Karl Miranda agreed with the dismissal of the graft charge against Agra but noted that Agra should not have honored the CHI and the Cavite provincial government’s right to first refusal which has been consistently recognized by the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel which has jurisdiction on the PRA and the Department of Justice.

“Agra should have honored the same [decision of OGCC and DOJ],” Miranda said.

Miranda, however, said that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence proving that Agra withheld information from the PRA Board or that the Board acted on incomplete disclosures.

Likewise, Miranda said there was no proof presented that Agra had actual knowledge of the 2019 DOJ opinion, which could at least have prompted Agra to withhold his concurrence in the board resolutions authorizing Rubiato to sign the MOAs.

“At most, Agra's fault lies in his seeking a definitive judicial resolution of the competing claims before approving the projects, but the same amounted only to an error of judgment, and not "manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence" contemplated under Section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019,” Miranda said.

Associate Justice Fritz Bryn Delos Santos agreed, saying Agra, in his official capacity as Chairperson, cannot be expected to also be knowledgeable of the PRA's daily operations, which included the solicitation and receipt of the subject GOCC and DOJ opinion.

“The prosecution relied on a mere presumption of knowledge without presenting any concrete evidence that Agra had indeed been notified by Rubiato of the existence of the OGCC and DOJ opinions,” delos Santos said.

As a result of the dismissal of the case, the Hold Departure Order issued against Agra has been lifted and set aside and his cash bond has been ordered released. —VAL, GMA News