The Sandiganbayan has found four former top officials of the Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA), now the Tourism Infrastructure and Enterprise Zone Authority, guilty of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act over alleged irregularities in a construction project in 2005.
Former PTA deputy general manager Edgardo Bocar was convicted on three counts of graft, former department manager Armando Miranda on two counts, and former general manager Robert Dean Barbers and deputy general manager Jose Diaz on one count each.
They were sentenced to six to eight years imprisonment for each count with perpetual disqualification from holding any other government post.
Associate Justice Karl B. Miranda penned the decision promulgated June 27, 2025 with Associate Justices Sarah Jane Fernandez and Kevin Narce B. Vivero concurring.
In the first graft case, Barbers, Bocar and Diaz were held jointly liable to pay P3,709,852.32 to the government.
Bocar and Miranda were ordered to repay P1,050,065.35 in relation to the second graft and P4,055,439.81 on the third case, both amounts representing partial payments made to contractor I. A. Bosque Construction Corp.
The Office of the Ombudsman filed the cases in 2021, alleging that the accused conspired in causing undue injury to the government when they awarded the P24.73 million PTA Sports Complex project in Revellin de Recoletos, Intramuros, Manila to IA Bosque on November 11, 2005.
Prosecutors said the award of the project proceeded even if the accused PTA executives were aware that the cost exceeded the P15 million budget approved by the PTA Board.
They added that the Notice to Proceed was issued to the contractor even before a building permit could be obtained from the Office of the City Engineer of Manila and in the absence of a clearance from the Intramuros Administration.
The project site was later moved to Club Intramuros, and excavation for the foundation started late in 2005 but was stopped in the last quarter of 2006 due to notices of various violations of Presidential Decree No. 166 and the National Building Code.
Subsequently, the Commission on Audit also issued an Audit Observation Memorandum against the project for inadequate planning and non-compliance with existing regulations.
In its 100-page decision, the Sandiganbayan Sixth Division held that while the prosecution failed to establish manifest partiality and evident bad faith on the part of the defendants, its evidence proved they acted with gross inexcusable negligence.
“Clearly, …the accused were palpably indifferent to their duty in ensuring the required permits were secured prior to the procurement and implementation of the project,” the court said.
It noted that all the accused knew that they were supposed to secure the required permits and concurrence of the Intramuros Administration, but still proceeded to award the project and gave the contractor the go-ahead by releasing initial payments.
“The accused’s collective indifference amounts to a flagrant and devious breach of duty that is not only gross but likewise inexcusable,” the Sandiganbayan said.
