Ex-MRT 3 exec, in-law get 16 years for graft

MANILA, Philippines (Update 2, 10:22 a.m.) —  Former Metro Rail Transit Line 3 (MRT-3) general manager Al Vitangcol III and his uncle-in-law Arturo Soriano have been sentenced to up to 16 years in prison by the Sandiganbayan anti-graft court which found them guilty of purposely concealing their relationship in order to allow service provider Philippine Trans Rail Management and Services Corp. (PH Trams) to bag a multimillion-dollar deal for MRT-3 maintenance.

In a 45-page decision promulgated on Jan. 31 and released to the media yesterday, the court’s Third Division found Vitangcol and Soriano, one of the incorporators of PH Trams, guilty of violating Section 3 (e) of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and Section 47 of RA 9184 or the Government Procurement Reform Act.

They were sentenced to a minimum of six years to a maximum eight years of imprisonment for each offense or a total of 12 to 16 years. They were also perpetually banned from holding public office.

Vitangcol and Soriano may appeal their conviction through a motion for reconsideration.

Vitangcol was unavailable for comment as of press time. Soriano told The STAR over the phone that he has already filed a motion for reconsideration. Soriano is currently the chief of the Pangasinan Provincial Accounting Office.

The Third Division, on the other hand, acquitted the four other accused in the cases, namely, PH Trams incorporators Wilson de Vera, Marlo dela Cruz, Manolo Maralit and Federico Remo.

The court said the prosecution team of the Office of the Ombudsman failed to establish that the PH Trams incorporators colluded with one another and with Vitangcol before, during and after the bidding process for the maintenance deal.

The ombudsman filed the cases in 2015, or three years after the awarding of an interim maintenance contract to joint venture PH Trams and CB&T.

The ombudsman said Vitangcol “unlawfully” used his position in recommending the awarding of the contract to PH Trams “despite having a direct or indirect financial or pecuniary interest” in the company, as Soriano is the uncle of his wife.

Under the contract, the MRT was to pay PH Trams $1.15 million monthly for its Line 3’s maintenance.

Under Section 47 of RA 9184, “bidders are automatically disqualified from participating in the procurement activities of a Procuring Entity when such bidder is related by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree to the Head of the Procuring Entity (HOPE) or members of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC), the Technical Working Group (TWG) and the BAC Secretariat.”

Section 3 (e) of RA 3019, on the other hand, prohibits public officials from giving unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference to a private party or from causing any party, including the government, undue injury.

The Third Division said Vitangcol “purposely concealed” his relationship with Soriano so that PH Trams would not be disqualified from the bidding.

“Because of this non-disclosure, PH Trams eventually bagged the interim Maintenance Contract from the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC),” it added.

The court noted that Vitangcol even served as team leader of the task force which reviewed the draft contract.

“Vitangcol, although admitting knowing one of the incorporators of PH Trams to be a relative by affinity, chose to remain silent during the entire procurement process. To our minds, this is a clear breach of his sworn duty as a public official,” the Third Division said.

Associate Justice Bernelito Fernandez penned the decision, with concurrence of Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang and Associate Justice Ronald Moreno.

Vitangcol was earlier acquitted of another set of graft cases at the Sandiganbayan in connection with the alleged $30-million extortion try on Czech company Inekon Group.

The court's Sixth Division in its resolution promulgated on October 7, 2019, granted Vitangcol's and his co-accused Wilson De Vera's demurrer to evidence, in which they prayed for the dismissal of the cases on the ground of the weakness of evidence of the Office of the Ombudsman's prosecution team. — With Eva Visperas