Sandigan clears Vitangcol in MRT-3 extortion raps

MANILA, Philippines — Because of the failure of the complainant to testify, the Sandiganbayan yesterday dismissed the graft cases filed against former Metro Rail Transit Line 3 (MRT-3) general manager Al Vitangcol III and PH Trams director Wilson de Vera in connection with the alleged $30-million shakedown on Czech company Inekon Group in 2012.

In a 20-page decision, the anti-graft court’s Sixth Division granted Vitangcol and De Vera’s respective demurrer to evidence, which sought the dismissal of the cases on the ground of weak evidence presented by the ombudsman’s prosecution panel.

The court said the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to convict Vitangcol and De Vera.

Graft charges were filed against Vitangcol and De Vera by the ombudsman in 2015.

The cases stemmed from Vitangcol and De Vera’s alleged attempt to extort from Inekon Group some $30 million, which was later reduced to $2.5 million in exchange for awarding to the company the contract for the supply of train coaches as part of the P3.8-billion MRT expansion project under the Aquino administration.

The extortion try, which allegedly happened in July 2012, was exposed by then Czech ambassador Josef Rychtar. The incident supposedly took place in Rychtar’s house in Forbes Park, Makati.

In dismissing the cases, the Sixth Division said aside from the prosecution’s failure to prove the conspiracy between Vitangcol and De Vera, it was also unable to present any witness that has personal knowledge of the supposed shakedown attempt.

The court had allowed Rychtar to testify through video-conferencing. But the prosecution asked to reset the presentation twice, saying he was completing a tour of duty as envoy to Chile.

Since Rychtar and Inekon Group board chairman Josef Husek were never presented by the prosecution, the Sandiganbayan said their sworn affidavits could not be admitted as evidence. 

After two postponements, the court forfeited the prosecution’s chance to present Rychtar, saying resetting the presentation to another dates would cause unjust delay in the proceedings.

Vitangcol lauded the Sandiganbayan’s decision.