NESTOR Villegas, 72, former member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Camarines Sur, is headed for the slammer after the Sandiganbayan denied his urgent motion to quash the arrest warrant for his conviction on a charge of malversation of public funds.
This, even if, according to trial records, he was able to return the entire amount of P150,104.70 representing cash advances released to him for a trip overseas 28 years ago that did not materialize.
In a resolution dated June 23, 2025, the anti-graft court’s sixth division overruled the defendant’s argument that arresting him and committing him to prison to serve his sentence will amount to inhuman punishment.
Villegas was convicted on July 27, 2018 and sentenced to imprisonment for two years and four months to six years with perpetual disqualification from holding another public post on top of a fine for P150,104.70 or the same amount he was accused of pocketing.
Testifying in his defense, Villegas said he requested the cash advance due to an invitation to a convention in the United States on July 1, 1997. However, his application for a US visa was denied.
He admitted that when he stepped down at the end of his term in 1998, he failed to liquidate the cash advance because he fell ill and had to use part of the money for his medical expenses.
When he left government service, he no longer had money but still refunded the amount in full, although it took him several years to complete it.
Based on the records, the defendant returned P100,00 in December 2011 and P50,104.70 in December 2012.
In convicting the accused, the court said even full restitution of the cash advance does not constitute a mitigating circumstance that would lessen his penalty, as the refund took more than 14 years.
In his motion seeking to quash the arrest warrant, Villegas said that at 72, he is already suffering from several life-threatening ailments, including heart problems, renal disease, and diabetes.
He added that he can no longer walk unaided or go to the bathroom and take his medications unaided.
Invoking the Supreme Court ruling in Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan, he pleaded for leniency in consideration of his advanced age and health condition.
His lawyer cited the constitutional prohibition against “cruel, degrading, or inhuman punishment,” adding that Villegas cannot be considered a flight risk.
In denying the defendant’s motion, the Sandiganbayan noted that the Supreme Court had already denied Villegas’ petition for review in 2018 and the said ruling became final and executory on July 15, 2024.
“Accused Villages failed to show any valid ground for the quashal of the said warrant of arrest against him. Accused Villegas failed to substantiate his bare assertion that the enforcement of the subject warrant of arrest will violate the constitutional prohibition against cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment,” the court pointed out.
In sweeping aside his plea for liberty based on the Enrile case, the court pointed out that the former senator has not been convicted and still enjoys the presumption of innocence when he was granted bail while Villegas was already found guilty of a criminal offense and the judgment has already attained finality.
“Laws that punish crimes committed by public officers, including malversation of public funds, have the legitimate purpose of aiming to uphold the principle that public office is a public trust, which is now enshrined in Art XI, Sec. 1 of the Constitution,” the Sandiganbayan said
