CITING the “broader interest of justice,” the Sandiganbayan has allowed a former official of Philippine Trans Rail Management and Services Corp. (PH Trams) to pursue his appeal on his conviction on two counts of graft before the Supreme Court.
In a four-page resolution dated May 17, 2021, the anti-graft court’s Third Division granted the motion for reconsideration of defendant Arturo Soriano, an incorporator of Ph Trams and uncle of the wife of former Metro Rail Transit Line 3 (MRT-3) general manager Al Vitangcol III.
The ruling set aside the January 20, 2021 resolution that denied Soriano’s notice of appeal and effectively barred him from challenging the January 31, 2020 decision that pronounced him and Vitangcol guilty of two counts of violation of RA 3019 or the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Both were sentenced to six to eight years imprisonment for each count or a total of 12 to 16 years.
The court said that Vitangcol acted in bad faith by failing to disclose his kinship with Soriano, leading to the conclusion that PH Trams and of PH Trams and its joint venture partner Comm Builders and Technology Philippines Corp. (CB & T) were unduly favored when the MRT-3 maintenance contract was awarded to the joint venture.
Soriano sought the reversal of his conviction but this was denied on September 2, 2020.
Instead of filing a notice of appeal as required by the rules, his lawyer filed a petition for review on certiorari.
Belatedly realizing the error, the defense filed a notice of appeal by email on October 7, 2020 but failed to pay the required appeal fee on the same day which was the deadline for his appeal.
In the assailed ruling, the court held that even if the defendant posted the fee on October 8, 2020, he was still in default for failing to observe the reglementary period.
In the latest resolution, however, the Sandiganbayan opted to exercise its discretion to relax the rules on procedures saying Soriano deserves an opportunity to be heard in full since he is facing a hefty penalty.
“To deny due course to Soriano’s notice of appeal at this point would be to deprive him of a final opportunity to challenge his conviction that would eventually result in his deprivation of liberty for a significant period of time,” the anti-graft court said.
It said that while it does not condone the “carelessness of Soriano’s counsel,” it found compelling reasons to allow the appeal.
