A FORMER provincial engineer and seven contractors were cleared by the Sandiganbayan of graft charges related to Negros Oriental provincial government projects in 2012.
In a 52-page resolution dated May 4 and uploaded Friday, the anti-graft court’s Second Division granted the demurrers and motions to dismiss of Ricardo Santos, Maribel Ranola, Mark Anthony Clemente, Danny Chan, Farouk Macarambon, Alejadro Lim, Wildred Chu, and former provincial engineer Franco Alpuerto.
The court cited the “failure of the prosecution to sufficiently establish the essential elements of the crime and to overcome the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused”.
On Jan. 29, 2021, the Sandiganbayan already dismissed the graft and malversation through falsification charges against former governor Roel Degamo, provincial treasurer Danilo Mendez, and provincial accountant Teodorico Reyes on the ground of double jeopardy.
The Ombudsman discovered that the transactions were pursued despite the issuance of a “negative” Special Allotment Release Order (SARO) on a PHP961-million calamity lump sum fund to address the repair, rehabilitation, and construction in the province in the aftermath of a Feb. 6, 2012 earthquake.
The Department of Budget and Management (DBM), through former undersecretary Mario Relampagos, also asked Degamo on June 29, 2012 to return to the national treasury PHP480.78 million representing half of the fund released and deposited to the bank account of the province.
The charges were filed after investigators said the private contractors were paid partially, although the release of the fund for the projects were withdrawn and their return demanded by the DBM.
In dismissing the charges, the court said there was no proof of conspiracy between the provincial government and the private contractors.
“It is glaring from the testimonial evidence that the private contactors were unaware of the withdrawal of the SARO,” the decision read.
The court likewise noted that then-DBM officials testified that the private contractors were never informed about the negative SARO.
“The prosecution was only able to establish that the private contractors only came to know of the withdrawal [of the SARO] when the notices of disallowances were issued, which were furnished to them months after the release of the advance payments,” the decision added. (Benjamin Pulta)
No comments:
Post a Comment