FORMER postmaster general Hector Villanueva and chief executive staff Juliana Dimalanta has been acquitted by the Sandiganbayan on a graft charge involving allegations of illegal appointment of a consultant who was already holding a post as assistant secretary under the Office of the President in 2007 to 2010.
Despite having confirmed the hiring of Antonio Corrado as legal and administrative consultant in addition to his position as assistant secretary under the Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary for legal Affairs (ODESLA), the anti-graft court’s Fourth Division said it was not shown that the defendants acted with malicious motive or fraudulent intent.
“It is not enough that the accused violated a law, committed mistakes, or was negligent in his duties. There must be a clear showing that the accused was spurred by a corrupt motive or a deliberate intent to do wrong or cause damage,” the Sandiganbayan said.
Based on the 2016 indictment, Villanueva and Dimalanta were accused of giving unwarranted benefits to Corrado and causing undue injury to the government.
Corrado, who was named co-defendant, died during the pendency of the case, resulting in the dismissal of the charges against him on February 15, 2022.
In exonerating the former executives of the Philippine Postal Corporation, the court said it was satisfied with the explanation submitted by Villanueva that he hired Corrado, a lawyer, after finding that there were many unresolved administrative matters before his office requiring legal expertise.
The former Postmaster pointed out that, for legal advice and services, Corrado was paid P25,000 each month which is substantially lower than what the PPC would have paid had it hired a full-time legal officer.
Likewise, the Sandiganbayan noted that for 2007 to 2009 the Commission on Audit issued no audit observation, notice of suspension, or notice of disallowance calling to question Corrado’s appointment.
Since Corrado submitted a clearance to accept the PPC consultancy from his direct superiors at ODESLA, the court said it shows that there was no gross inexcusable negligence that can be attributed to the defendants, even if what the law required was the approval of no less than the Office of the President.
