DESPITE finding that P22.5 million of the P25 million from the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) allocations of former senator Gregorio Honasan went to a bogus non-government organization (NGO) through the actions of officials of a government-owned or controlled corporation (GOCC), the Sandiganbayan acquitted all of the accused of a money laundering charge.
In a 36-page decision issued on Sept. 18, 2024, the anti-graft court’s Second Division held that the evidence presented by the prosecution did not establish the guilt of former Technology Resource Center (TRC) director general Dennis Cunanan, group manager Maria Rosalinda Lacsamana, and private defendants Petronila Balmaceda, Thelma Melegrito, and Leoncio Balisi.
Associate Justice Edgardo M. Caldona penned the decision concurred in by Associate Justices Geraldine Faith A. Econg and Arthur O. Malabaguio.
Based on the information filed in 2022 by the Office of the Ombudsman, they were accused of conspiracy to defraud the government by funneling Honasan’s PDAF to a bogus NGO identified as the Pangkabuhayan Foundation Inc. (PFI).
Prosecutors presented evidence that Honasan endorsed the bogus foundation as “co-implementer” of his PDAF-funded project.
Honasan, TRC, and PFI signed a tripartite memorandum of agreement outlining the terms on how to put up livelihood projects for widows and orphans of soldiers and police officers from Cagayan and Isabela who perished in the line of duty.
But government auditors from the Commission on Audit and corruption investigators from the Office of the Ombudsman later found that the livelihood projects did not exist, the list of beneficiaries did not exist, and even the foundation itself did not exist even if its officials were able to sign the MOA.
Honasan was not indicted as a defendant in the case while Antonio Ortiz, former TRC chief, remains at large.
Out of Honasan’s P25 million PDAF, TRC retained P2.5 million as “retention/or processing fee” while the balance of P22.5 million was transferred through the issuance of two Land Bank of the Philippines checks to PFI.
The Sandiganbayan said it found no evidence of conspiracy among the accused, noting that it has been “a practice among lawmakers” to allocate portions of the annual budget to fund their pet projects.
It noted that Honasan’s endorsement of PFI as co-implementer his PDAF-funded project triggered the release of the P25 million by the Department of Budget and Management.
After this, the court said the TRC officials were duty bound to “ensure that the necessary allocation would be safeguarded by determining that the designated NGO possessed the required capacity or competence to qualify as eligible co-implementer of the project.
Cunanan signed the disbursement voucher certifying that the release of P20 million was “necessary, lawful, and incurred under his supervision.” Lacsamana did the same for a separate disbursement voucher for P2.5 million.
The court said Ortiz, as head of TRC, clipped the authority of Cunanan on matters involving the PDAF-funded projects while the latter, upon being promoted as GOCC head in 2010, ordered an investigation into TRC’s involvement in PDAF projects.
These acts, in the eyes of the Sandiganbayan, showed that conspiracy did not exist between them.
On the other hand, it pointed out that Lacsamana was not shown to be connected in any way to PFI or any of its officers but merely performed her functions as group manager.
“Accused Cunanan and Lacsamana have not been adequately proven liable even by their individual acts, at least in the instant case, relative to the PDAF transaction. At best, their omission to undertake preventive measures to safeguard the proper utilization of the funds could only amount to negligence,” the court said.
The court, however, acknowledged that their individual acts were “incidentally necessary to facilitate the release of the subject fuds.”
Neither did the Sandiganbayan find enough evidence to convict Balmaceda who was identified as president of the bogus NGO, Balisi as treasurer, and Melegrito as auditor.
It sustained their defense that their signatures were falsified.
Over the objection of prosecutors that finger-pointing was resorted to by the accused as a mere convenient excuse, the Sandiganbayan upheld the defendants’ claim of forgery after its own careful scrutiny of the signatures on different documents.
“The Court is convinced that the questioned signatures do not belong to accused Balmaceda, Balisi and Melegrito. The spontaneity in their testimonies exude an unmistakable impression that they were professing the truth,” the court added.
