Sandigan affirms ex-Navy officer’s graft conviction

MANILA, Philippines — The Sandiganbayan’s Third Division has affirmed the conviction of a former Philippine Navy officer for multiple counts of graft and malversation of public funds over the anomalous procurement of medicines and medical supplies over 30 years ago.

In a 10-page resolution dated Jan. 4 and released on Friday, the anti-graft court denied the motions for reconsideration filed by retired Philippine Navy rear admiral Gilmer Batestil and co-accused Victoriano Chua.

The two were appealing the court’s Sept. 16, 2022 decision, which convicted Batestil of 20 counts of malversation of public funds and 16 counts of graft and Chua of four counts of graft.

Batestil was sentenced to serve up to 18 years, eight months and one day in prison for the malversation cases and up to 10 years for the graft convictions.

He was also ordered to pay a fine of P17,093,717 and indemnify the government for the same amount, which is equivalent to the amount of malversed public funds.

Meanwhile, Chua was sentenced to 10 years in prison for graft.

The case stemmed from the non-delivery of medicines and medical supplies procured by the Philippine Navy from 1990 to 1992.

In his appeal, Batestil said there was no “incontrovertible proof” to convict him of malversation. He said he would not have signed the documents presented during trial since there were erasures and that he would have asked the administrative officer to change them.

Batestil also said that there is no direct and clear evidence to show that he conspired with his co-accused in the alleged misappropriation of public funds through falsification of public documents.

Chua, a private contractor, said he was entitled to be paid for the contracts for participating in the bidding, getting the award and delivering the medicines allegedly received by the Philippine Navy.

He said the prosecution failed to present evidence to prove the absence of the disbursement vouchers (DVs) with respect to the checks issued in his name and that there was no evidence to establish that he conspired with his co-accused.

But in its ruling, the Third Division said Batestil and Chua have not raised any new or substantial matter to warrant the reversal of the decision.

“It must be pointed out that accused Batestil confirmed that he signed the subject documents and affirmed that it was his signature appearing on the subject DVs,” read the resolution penned by Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang. Associate Justices Bernelito Fernandez and Ronald Moreno concurred.

The resolution stated that in signing the documents, Batestil “showed the concurrence of the will and unity of purpose” between him and the other accused.

As for Chua, the court said “he could have easily presented the Notice of Award and other bidding documents to support his allegations. Even the alleged deliveries he purportedly made could have been supported by delivery invoices or any delivery documents to establish the same, which he utterly failed to do.”