MANILA, Philippines — The Sandiganbayan has acquitted six former officials of the Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice) of graft charges in connection with their approval of an allegedly anomalous P15.78-million car plan for employees in 2009.
In its 48-page decision promulgated on Dec. 2 last year, but was only released last Friday, the court’s Sixth Division said the prosecution panel of the Office of the Ombudsman failed to prove the accused PhilRice officials’ criminal intent to gain some pecuniary or fiduciary benefits for themselves or for other persons.
Former PhilRice Board of Trustees (BOT) members Johnifer Batara, Fe Laysa, William Padolina, Senen Bacani and Rodolfo Undan were specifically acquitted of one count each of violation of Section 3 (e) and 3 (g) of Republic Act (RA) 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Former PhilRice cashier IV Fe Lumawag, who was named as co-accused only for violation of Section 3 (g) of RA 3019, was likewise acquitted.
“The demand for accountability should not be at the expense of well-meaning public officials who may have erred while performing their duties, but have done so without a criminal mind. Our penal laws against corruption in the government are meant to enhance, rather than stifle, public service,” the Sixth Division’s decision stated.
Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 prohibits public officials from giving unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference to a private party or from causing any party, including the government, undue injury, while Section 3 (g) of the same law prohibits public officials from entering into any contract or transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government.
Filed by the Office of the Ombudsman in 2018, the cases stemmed from the PhilRice BOT’s approval in 2009 of hold-out agreements (HOAs), which allowed PhilRice employees to obtain loans totaling P15.780 million from Philippine National Bank (PNB) for the purchase of their rent-to-own cars.
The ombudsman said the deal was approved without holding any public bidding and with the PhilRice beneficiary-employees “being still entitled to transportation allowance despite the use of the official vehicles.”
In its decision, however, the Sixth Division sided with the former BOT members’ argument that their approval of the car plan was motivated by good faith, specifically “to prevent brain drain” in PhilRice and allow the deserving and hardworking employees to own a vehicle.
“Notably, no BOT member actually availed of the car plan. The 10 beneficiaries were officials and employees deployed in the PhilRice central station in Nueva Ecija and other branches/stations all over the Philippines who regularly needed transportation for their research and development work,” the Sixth Division pointed out.
The court also noted that “neither did the accused BOT members handpick the car plan beneficiaries as they (beneficiaries), in fact, applied to avail the said benefit after (former PhilRice executive director Ronilo) Beronio implemented the guidelines.”
Furthermore, the court said the car plan deal, through HOAs with the PNB, cannot be considered disadvantageous to the government as the money involved was part of PhilRice’s savings which were under savings account and time deposits in the said bank.
“It bears stressing that the amounts subject of the HOAs were excess funds from previously implemented and completed external projects of PhilRice... Whether or not the HOAs were executed, the funds would remain as PhilRice deposits with PNB which will eventually gain interest over time. True enough, the amounts were returned to PhilRice at the end of the HOAs with earned interest,” the court said.