Vitangcol wants to know why ombudsman spared Abaya

MANILA, Philippines – Former Metro Rail Transit Line 3 (MRT-3) general manager Al Vitangcol III has asked the Sandiganbayan to order the Office of the Ombudsman to produce the records of its investigation pertaining to Transportation and Communications Secretary Joseph Emilio Abaya.

Wanting to know why Abaya was cleared of graft charges while he was indicted, Vitangcol said the anti-graft court should direct the production of documents relevant to the case.

Vitangcol, who is facing graft charges for his alleged role in an MRT-3 service maintenance deal anomaly, has been questioning why Abaya was absolved.

He claimed that the department chief’s counter-affidavit when the case was still under investigation would help “negate the wrongful accusations of the ombudsman.”

“The ombudsman deliberately and maliciously withheld the said affidavits, all to the detriment of the herein accused,” his motion filed before the Sandiganbayan Third Division read.

Crying foul over how he was allegedly denied access to the documents, he said the anti-graft court should direct the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) as the prosecutorial arm of the Office of the Ombudsman to produce material evidence, including records that led to the dismissal of the charges against Abaya.

Apart from submitting the documents, Vitangcol wants ombudsman prosecutors to admit under oath that Abaya declared the MRT-3 maintenance deal with PH Trams was aboveboard as the process of negotiated procurement was followed without causing undue injury to the government.

The former MRT-3 head had complained from the very beginning that he was being singled out in the case, even though many others like Abaya approved the contract in 2012.

Vitangcol last week said he is facing trial with no money to spend for a counsel of his choice, which is why he is asking for the help of the Public Attorney’s Office.

“The institution of this instant case, together with the seemingly biased press releases of the Office of the Ombudsman, had effectively ruined the reputation and integrity of the herein accused,” he said.

“Thus, he was not able to get new clients in the exercise of his profession and greatly diminished his earning capacity,” Vitangcol said.