POLICE Col. Rainer Espina, former acting chief of the PNP Management Division, has failed to persuade the Sandiganbayan to reverse its June 21, 2023 ruling that denied his demurrers to evidence.
In an 11-page resolution, the anti-graft court’s Fourth Division reiterated its earlier findings that the evidence presented by the prosecution proved that there was no delivery of engines and transmission assemblies for PNP V-150 armored vehicles even if defendant police officers and non-uniformed personnel (NUPs) certified that the items were duly inspected and accepted.
“Stated simply, there would have been nothing for the accused (property and inspection officers) to inspect and accept; thus, accused Espina was either patently remiss in performing his public functions or was complicit in the issuance of the false certification as he confirmed their submissions,” the Sandiganbayan said.
Associate Justice Bayani H. Jacinto penned the resolution, with Associate Justices Michael Frederick L. Musngi and Lorifel Lacap Pahimna concurring.
Based on charges for graft and malversation of public funds filed in 2013, the Office of the Ombudsman charged the police officials and NUPs with conspiracy with businessmen representing Evans Spare Parts Motorworks Repair and Trading, Enviro-Aire Inc., and RJP International Trading Construction and General Services to defraud the PNP through ghost procurement and repair works on police V-150 armored vehicles in 2007 and 2008.
Prosecutors said the first transaction totaled P239.615 million while the second one was for P134.388 million.
In the assailed June 21, 2023 ruling, other than Espina, the Sandiganbayan also denied demurrers to evidence filed by former PNP chief Avelino Razon, Colonels Emmanuel Ojeda, Victor Agarcio, and Reuel Labrado; Lt. Cols. Warlito Tubon, Henry Duque, and Edgar Paatan; Major Analee Forro; PNP Accounting Division chief Antonio Retrato; NUPs Eulito Fuentes, Patricia Enaje, Maria Teresa Narcises, and Alex Barrameda; and private defendants Harold Ong, Tyrone Ong, Pamela Pensotes, and Evangeline Bais.
However, the court granted similar pleadings by Maj. Generals Geary Barias and Eliseo Dela Paz, Brig. Gen. Orlando Pestaño; and Col. Dennis Canoy.
In his motion for reconsideration, Espina complained that he was “simply lumped together with the other accused as if he performed the same acts” when his participation was limited to marking some documents “Noted.”
He said the court made some “misapprehension of facts” when it held that his actions amounted to confirming the findings of the PNP property inspectors.
He disputed the pronouncement that there was evidence to support that he acted with negligence or imprudence as he argued that there was no evidence of “active participation” on his part.
In its Comment/Opposition, the prosecution said Espina was attempting to trivialize his role in the transactions by insisting that he merely “noted” the inspection report forms (IRFs) and pre-inspection report (PIR).
It countered that while the defendant is not expected to repeat the inspection and verification of each delivery from suppliers, his position as head of the PNP’s Management Division still carries with it a responsibility to “ensure that the goods and services procured were actually delivered or performed to specifications.”
Government lawyers pointed out that the inspection reports stated that the engines and transmission assemblies were delivered by RJP International Trading but this was impossible since it was confirmed that the particular V-150 engines involved were not available as the armored car model they were designed for was no longer in production.
The court sustained the position of the prosecutors noting that evidence on record established that there were “ghost deliveries.”
“In all, the prosecution was able to clearly show that the certifications made by the property and inspection officers that they accepted and inspected the deliveries from RJP were patent falsities. Stated simply, there would have been nothing for the accused to inspect and accept,” the court declared.
84 BSKE bets face DQ
BY GERARD NAVAL
AT least 84 candidates in the October 30 Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections (BSKE) are facing possible disqualification cases as the Commission on Elections (Comelec) starts filing charges this week against those accused of premature campaigning.
Data provided by the Comelec as of September 25 showed that 84 candidates face possible disqualification cases “upon initial assessment.”
The 84 are among the 2,173 candidates issued with Show Cause Orders (SCOs) by the Comelec on complaints of early electioneering.
Of the 2,173 bets with SCOs, the poll body said it has received 240 answers from candidates.
But while 84 are facing possible disqualification cases, the Comelec said it had dropped complaints against 141 bets with SCOs due to lack of “factual basis.”
Electioneering activities are still prohibited until October 18 as the BSKE campaign period will start only on October 19.
The Comelec already said it will start filing formal petitions for disqualification for those accused of prematurely campaigning this week.
The poll body is looking to resolve the petitions for disqualification before the October 30 elections.
