FORMER PNP chief Avelino Razon Jr. and his co-defendants have failed to persuade the Sandiganbayan, in their latest bid, to seek the immediate dismissal of graft and malversation charges filed against them in 2013 in relation to alleged fraudulent transactions in 2007 and 2008.
Associate Justice Bayani H. Jacinto penned the 40-page resolution that denied the motions for reconsideration filed by the defendants seeking reversal of the anti-graft court’s June 21, 2023 ruling that upheld the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence.
Associate Justice Lorifel Lacap Pahimna concurred with the ponencia in its entirety while Associate Justice Michael Frederick L. Musngi concurred only in the result.
Aside from Razon, those who assailed the previous ruling were Police Colonels Emmanuel Ojeda and Reuel Leverne Labrado, Police Major Analee Forro, non-uniformed personnel (NUP) Patricia Enaje, Maria Teresa Narcise, and Alex Barrameda; and traders/suppliers Harold Ong and Tyler Arejola a.k.a Tyrone Ong.
Their cases involved allegations that the defendant PNP officials and NUP conspired 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 V-150 police armored cars.
Prosecutors said the first transaction was worth P239.615 million while the second one was for P134.388 million.
According to state auditor Chona P. Labrague, special audit team leader, none of the three suppliers was eligible to handle the transaction because they lacked authorization from Textron Marine and Land Systems, manufacturer of the V-150 armored carriers, to be its distributors of parts and accessories.
The court, however, granted demurrers to evidence filed by Police Maj. Generals Geary Barias and Eliseo Dela Paz, Police Brig. General Orlando Pestaño, and Police Col. Dennis Canoy, which had an effect of an outright acquittal on lack of evidence.
Razon argued that the prosecution’s allegation of criminal intent, conspiracy with other defendants, and negligence against him are conceptually inconsistent, which makes the charges defective.
On the malversation charges, he stressed that there was no proof of his participation in executing the allegedly falsified documents or that he was an accountable officer.
The former PNP chief said he could only be held liable by presenting proof that he willfully participated in the felonies committed, which cannot be established through evidence of irregularities in the bid documents.
The court, however, clarified that the selection of the supplier rested upon the decision of the head of the procuring entity to execute a contract with the winning bidder or the issuance of a purchase order or work order.
“Accused Razon’s acts of signing the WOs and the POs clearly fall within the ambit of selecting the winning bidders,” the court declared.
Likewise, the Sandiganbayan said that delivery, inspection, and acceptance papers were dated later than the disbursement vouchers and checks, which showed that Razon signed the latter documents before deliveries were made.
In the case of Labrado who asserted that it was not shown by the prosecution that he was present during the bidding process and participated in any way, the court pointed out that Minutes of the Bidding on September 24, December 12, and December 20, 2007 clearly showed his presence.
“To disavow that he was present therein is an admission that the said document contains false information and that he and his co-accused who signed the same were attesting to patent falsities,” the court said.
The Sandiganbayan reminded the defendants that they have to present sufficient proof to rebut the prosecution’s evidence.
