SC reopens graft case vs Marcos crony

The Supreme Court (SC) assailed yesterday former Ombudsman Aniano Desierto for junking the criminal charges against a close associate of the late President Ferdinand Marcos.

Voting 4-1, the SC’s Third Division said Desierto committed grave abuse of discretion when he ordered the dismissal of the cases against businessman Herminio Disini, a known crony of the Marcoses.

Disini, whose wife Paciencia is a first cousin of former first lady Imelda Marcos and personal physician of the Marcos family, had been involved with the mothballed billion-dollar Bataan nuclear power plant project.

The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) found the project’s contract — which was executed on Feb. 9, 1976 and awarded to Westinghouse of the US — onerous and disadvantageous to the government.

However, in a May 31, 1997 resolution and an Oct. 24, 1997 order, Desierto cleared Disini and his co-accused of the crimes of corruption of public officials in relation to bribery and violation of the Anti-Graft Law.

In a five-page decision, the SC granted PCGG’s petition to set aside Desierto’s ruling and at the same time ordered the reopening of the cases in connection with the nuclear power plant.

Desierto cited lack of evidence in coming out with his ruling but in its decision, the SC asked the Ombudsman to file the same charges against Disini before the Sandiganbayan.

"The Bataan nuclear power plant is a monumental, billion-dollar, non-performing white elephant, which our impoverished people are still paying for even if they have not benefited from it all," read the strongly worded SC decision penned by Associate Justice Artemio Panganiban.

"Justice is long overdue. Let those who appear to be responsible for this humongous mess be brought to account for their participation. Let justice be done," the ruling added.

Concurring with Panganiban’s decision were division chairman Associate Justice Reynato Puno and members Associate Justices Renato Corona and Conchita Carpio-Morales. Associate Justice Angelina Sandoval Gutierrez was the lone dissenter.

The SC said Desierto was whimsical when he disregarded testimonial evidence on record and ruled that there was lack of evidence against Disini.

The High Tribunal noted Desierto’s finding was "completely belied by the records of the case."

Among these documents, the SC cited, were the handwritten notations of Marcos expressing his preference for Westinghouse and Burns and Roe, the project’s main contractor and subcontractor, respectively, and the affidavits executed by Burns and Roe chairman Samuel Hall Jr. that detailed his meetings and communications with Disini regarding the eventual award of the Philippine nuclear power plant project to the said firms.

"To our mind, the whole gamut of evidence presented is more than sufficient to support a criminal complaint for the crimes of corruption of public officials in relation to bribery and violation of the Anti-Graft Law. The evidence on record had engendered the reasonable belief that Disini had offered, promised or actually given to a public officer (Marcos) gifts or presents that made the latter liable for bribery," the High Court said.

The SC said PCGG presented sufficient evidence to engender a well-founded belief that at least one crime had been committed and that Disini was probably guilty and should be held for trial.

The tribunal stressed that PCGG established probable cause to show that Disini had capitalized, exploited and taken advantage of his close personal relations with Marcos who has the final decision to which corporation the BNPP project would be awarded.

The SC said the United States District Court of New Jersey had ruled in 1991 that "there was sufficient evidence of bribery" against Disini and cohorts in the case initiated by the government during the Aquino administration against Westinghouse and Burns and Roe.

"It behooves the Philippine government, especially the respondent Ombudsman as the directly affected authority, to review the facts carefully and let the ax fall where it should," the Court said.

The CSC, however, upheld the Ombudsman’s dismissal of the cases against Disini’s wife, Paciencia and co-respondents Angel, Liliana and Lea Disini for lack of evidence.