Sandiganbayan: Graft conviction vs ex-Cebu Customs exec, trader stays
BY Peter Tabingo
THE Sandiganbayan has thrown out a motion for reconsideration filed by an official of the Bureau of Customs Port of Cebu and his co-accused seeking the reversal of a 2017 Decision of the Cebu City Regional Trial Court branch 23 that convicted them of graft over an illegal shipment of sugar seized in 2000.
Fifth Division Associate Justices Rafael R. Lagos, Maria Theresa V. Mendoza-Arcega, and Maryann E. Corpus-Mañalac, in a 13-page resolution issued April 1, 2024, denied the appeal of defendants Benjamin Bongon, former chief of the Auction and Cargo Disposal Division at the BOC-Port of Cebu; and Roger Ang, a businessman who won the bidding for the seized cargo.
The same ruling affirmed the sentence of six years imprisonment and a fine in the sum of P10,859,063 imposed against the accused. In addition, Bongon was disqualified from holding any government post.
Case records showed BOC-Cebu seized 28,000 bags of undeclared sugar on board a docked vessel in 1999 and subsequently held an auction to dispose of the perishable cargo which was won by Ang’s firm.
The bidder was required to post a P21 million deposit of which P10.86 million was refunded at his request after supposedly offloading only 13,753 bags.
Investigators from the Office of the Ombudsman, however, found that Ang carted away 26,908 bags, prompting a criminal investigation followed by the indictment of the accused.
After their conviction by the Cebu RTC on December 18, 2017, the two filed separate motions for reconsideration which the local court again denied on August 7, 2018.
Bongon and Ang opted to challenge the RTC ruling but erroneously filed it before the Court of Appeals instead of the Sandiganbayan which had exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving violation of RA 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
In an 18-page decision dated June 27, 2022, the 20th Division of the Court of Appeals dismissed the defendant’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction and ordered the case transmitted to the Sandiganbayan.
The Sandiganbayan noted that the CA made an error by failing to dismiss the appeal at once as it took two years and four months before issuing a ruling only to transfer the records of the case.
It pointed out that Section, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court states that an appeal erroneously filed to the Court of Appeals should be dismissed outright, not transferred to the appropriate court.
Nonetheless, the anti-graft court ruled that the defendants’ appeal must be denied because they failed to rectify their mistake within the time allowed under the rules.
“The Court finds no compelling reason to grant appellants’ motions for reconsideration and considers their grounds or reasons in support of their motion unpersuasive,” the Sandiganbayan declared.
It added that Bongon, who is a lawyer, should have known that it was a wrong move to file his appeal before the CA.
“The ruling (of the Supreme Court) in Mencion v. Sandiganbayan is explicit that an appeal erroneously taken to the CA shall not be transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright. Such ruling had not been overturned or abandoned by the High Court,” the Sandiganbayan added.
Guiuan flagged for excessive discretionary fund spending
BY PETER TABINGO
GOVERNMENT auditors have called out the municipal government of Guiuan in Eastern Samar over excessive appropriation and spending for Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses (EME) in 2023 in violation of Commission on Audit Circular No. 85-55A and Section 325(h) of RA No. 7160 or the Local Government Code.
The audit team said based on limitations under the said law and COA Circular, Guiuan was only supposed to set aside P26,465.14 as EME or discretionary fund equivalent to two percent of the P1.323 million real property tax collection in 2021 (the next preceding calendar year).
It said the discretionary fund is only for the use of the local chief executive or the mayor.
“The Municipality did not only exceed the 2% limitation that could be appropriated for discretionary fund… but also provided budget for other offices other than the Office of the Mayor,” auditors noted.
Records showed the local government put up P6.56 million appropriations for EME which was P6.534 million in excess of the legal limit.
Worse, the municipal government even exceeded the said appropriation as total expenditures for the year hit P7.447 million or P7.42 million over the limit.
A breakdown of the EME spending showed the biggest shares went to the Office of the Mayor (P2.61 million), the Municipal Investment and Tourism Office (P1.33 million), the vice mayor’s office and the Sangguniang Bayan (P500,000 each), the municipal treasurer’s office (P450,000), the municipal administrator and the municipal engineers’ office (P200,000 each).
In its explanation to the audit observation, the Office of the Municipal Accountant said the local government made an “honest mistake” when it assumed that the EME was the same as Other Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (OMOOE) account.
It added that the offices that spent sums in the EME allocated the said funds for meetings, seminars, and conferences for trainings, as well as catering services.
The Municipal Budget Officer added that for 2024 corrections are already in place and that no more EME will be allocated to other offices other than the Office of the Mayor.
SC: Heinous crimes convicts entitled to
good conduct time allowance
BY ASHZEL HACHERO
THE Supreme Court has ruled that inmates convicted of heinous crimes are still entitled to good conduct time allowance (GCTA).
Up to 10,000 inmates may benefit from the ruling on Republic Act 10592, or the GCTA law, to shorten their prison sentence, the Bureau of Corrections said yesterday.
BuCor Director General Gregorio Pio Catapang Jr. said he has ordered the evaluation of prison records of those who will qualify under the SC ruling.
“We have to make sure that are really reformed and they are no longer a threat to society,” Catapang said, adding after the evaluation, they will forward it to the Department of Justice.
He added that priority will be given to those inmates who are terminally or seriously ill.
The High Court, in an en banc decision on Wednesday through Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh, held that the Department of Justice, in crafting the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) in 2019, “exceeded” its power of subordinate legislation when it excluded persons convicted of heinous crimes from the benefits of Republic Act 10592, or the GCTA law.
The en banc explained that when RA 10592 amended Article 97 of the Revised Penal Code, it used the connecting conjunction “or” to express that “any offender qualified for credit imprisonment pursuant to Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code,” and in the alternative “any convicted prisoner in any penal institution, rehabilitation, or detention center in any other local jail” may avail of the benefits granted by RA 10592.
Thus, the High Court said the justice department’s 2019 IRR expanded the scope of RA 10592 when it excluded recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees, and persons deprived of liberty convicted of heinous crimes from earning GCTA credits when the law itself did not do so.
It added that Article 97 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 10592, is clear that any convicted prisoner is entitled to GCTA as long as the prisoner is in any penal institution, rehabilitation or detention center, or any other local jail.
The DOJ’s move came after the implementation of the GCTA was mired in controversy after the Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) in 2020 released thousands of inmates, including those convicted of heinous crimes.
The flawed records of the BuCor led to the release of 1,914 heinous crime convicts who were hunted and or asked to return to detention by authorities.
One of the prisoners who nearly gained freedom due to the GCTA confusion was former Calauan, Laguna mayor Antonio Sanchez who was convicted for the rape-slay of UP Los Baños students Eileen Sarmenta and Alan Gomez.
It led to the sacking of then BuCor chief Nicanor Faeldon and prompted the DOJ to tighten the regulation forbidding those convicted of heinous crimes from availing themselves of the GCTA benefits.
