THE Sandiganbayan has affirmed its June 27, 2025 decision that pronounced four former top officials of the Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA, now Tourism Infrastructure and Enterprise Zone Authority) guilty of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019) in relation to alleged irregularities in a construction project in 2005.
The anti-graft court’s Special Sixth Division denied separate Motions for Reconsideration filed by former PTA general manager Robert Dean Barbers, deputy general manager Edgardo Bocar, and former department manager Armando Miranda on the ground that they raised rehashed issues and arguments that have already been considered in the assailed ruling.
“After a review of the records of the case and the arguments raised by the parties, the court denies the three motions for reconsideration,” the Sandiganbayan said.
The three, together with former deputy general manager Jose Diaz, were found guilty of gross inexcusable negligence when they awarded the P24.73 million PTA Sports Complex project in Revellin de Recoletos, Intramuros, Manila to IA Bosque on November 11, 2005.
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.
According to the court, 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.
It said the former PTA executives acted with “collective indifference” that amounted to “a flagrant and devious breach of duty that is not only gross but likewise inexcusable.”
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.
In their motions, the defendants challenged the court’s pronouncement that there was an implied conspiracy, insisting that the court built its theory on “inferential links and administrative oversights.”
“The Court disagrees. As held in the Decision, implied conspiracy in the form of conspiracy of silence and inaction is particularly relevant in crimes by culpa or negligence. Because of the nature of a crime by culpa or negligence, it is not possible for the prosecution to show an actual agreement between or among the accused to commit a crime,” the Sandiganbayan said.
