THE Supreme Court yesterday reversed the rulings of lower courts finding a Philippine Coast Guard commander and two Navy officers guilty of graft.
Gaining reprieve from the rulings were PCG Commander John Esplana, who was ordered reinstated, and Navy Commodore Francisco Tolin and Commander Manuel Tuason.
Esplana was found guilty of serious dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the interest of the service along with 24 other PCG officials in July 2017. He filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals which in September 2018 affirmed the consolidated decision issued by the Office of the Ombudsman in July 2017.
The tribunal, however, cleared Esplana for the alleged irregular release of P689.6 million worth of cash advances in 2014 and ordered him reinstated.
In his petition for review, Esplana explained that his duties primarily involved matters related to internal control and mostly advisory in nature and do not include the audit of the office’s various transactions.
The SC ruled that “there is no reasonable ground to believe that Esplana is responsible for the irregularities complained of… In this case, there is a dearth of evidence to prove that Esplana unlawfully and wrongfully used his position to procure some benefit for himself or for another person. There is no clear and convincing evidence that Esplana affixed his signature in the DVs (disbursement vouchers).”
The SC also reversed the decision of the Sandiganbayan issued in January 2017 which found Tolin and Tuason guilty of graft in connection with the alleged illegal purchase of medicines worth P1.83 million from 1991 to 1992.
The SC said Tolin and Tuason should be acquitted for the failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Sandiganbayan had earlier sentenced them to six to 10 years imprisonment.
The SC said Tolin and Tuason acted in good faith when they purchased medicines from PMS Commercial on the belief that these were urgently needed based on the request of the medical unit and later confirmed by the procurement officer.
The high court also said the petitioners made sure that all necessary documents were attached and that there was no overpricing in the purchase.
