Sandiganbayan reverses conviction of ex-Nueva Ecija governor, mayors
Published Mar 4, 2020 12:00 am
By Czarina Nicole Ong Ki
The Sandiganbayan Seventh Division has decided to reverse its conviction of former Nueva Ecija Governor Tomas Joson III, his nephew former Quezon Mayor Eduardo Basilio Joson, and former Bongabon Mayor Amelia A. Gamilla of their graft charges in relation to the anomalous donation of vehicles back in 2007.
Sandiganbayan (MANILA BULLETIN)
Joson was initially found guilty of two counts of violation of Section 3(e) and one count of Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Eduardo was found guilty of a single violation of Section 3(e), while Gamilla was found guilty of both Section 3(e) and (g).
The graft charges were due to the anomalous donation made by Joson of one unit mobile clinic, one unit Toyota Revo, one unit Ford F150, and one unit Nissan Urvan to his nephew, Eduardo.
He also donated one Nissan Terrano and one Ford Expedition, among others, to the Municipality of Bongabon, which was accepted by Gamilla.
In its July 26, 2019 ruling, the anti-graft court said that Joson decided to divest the vehicles and mobile clinic to the municipalities of Quezon and Bongabon through simple donations. But even if the donations were made out of benevolence or patriotism, the court said it must adhere to R.A. 7160, the Local Government Code of 1991.
Section 379 of R.A. 7160 provides that local government units (LGUs) are only allowed to dispose of properties that have become unserviceable for any cause or is no longer needed. But in this case, the court said there is no proof that the vehicles were unserviceable.
Joson argued in his motion for reconsideration that his convictions were based on facts not alleged in the Information, so this violated his constitutional right.
Meanwhile, Eduardo moved for a new trial based on purported recent development, which is the securing of a Certification issued by the Provincial General Services Officer that after the donation, the Provincial Government still had a sufficient number of vehicles.
The prosecution objected, maintaining that the Certification to which Eduardo was referring to is not newly-discovered evidence. The prosecution added that Tomas allegedly showed favoritism when he donated the vehicles to Eduardo who is his blood relative, and to Gamilla who happens to be his political ally.
But after reviewing their arguments "with a clearer and deeper understanding," the anti-graft court resolved to acquit the accused.
The court said in its resolution that the Information alleges neither the serviceability of the vehicles nor the violation by the donation of the rules on disposal of property.
"To rule that the system of property disposal need not be alleged in the Information is to lose sight of the constitutionally-guaranteed right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him," the resolution read.
At the same time, the court said the evidence fails to support a finding of manifest partiality among the accused. Even though Joson decided to donate to one out of five requesting municipalities, the court ruled that it is not sufficient proof that the donation is attended with manifest partiality.
"Without establishing the respective needs of the requesting municipalities, as well as which of said needs are more important, urgent, and outweigh the others, it is impossible to make a valid and fair deduction on whether, indeed, partiality was the motivating factor when the questioned donations were made," the resolution stated.
The 50-page resolution was written by Associate Justice Georgina Hidalgo with the concurrences of Associate Justices Bernelito Fernandez and Maryann E. Corpus-Mañalac. Seventh Division Chairperson Ma. Theresa Dolores Gomez-Estoesta and Associate Justice Zaldy Trespeses offered dissenting opinions.
Sandiganbayan (MANILA BULLETIN)
Joson was initially found guilty of two counts of violation of Section 3(e) and one count of Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Eduardo was found guilty of a single violation of Section 3(e), while Gamilla was found guilty of both Section 3(e) and (g).
The graft charges were due to the anomalous donation made by Joson of one unit mobile clinic, one unit Toyota Revo, one unit Ford F150, and one unit Nissan Urvan to his nephew, Eduardo.
He also donated one Nissan Terrano and one Ford Expedition, among others, to the Municipality of Bongabon, which was accepted by Gamilla.
In its July 26, 2019 ruling, the anti-graft court said that Joson decided to divest the vehicles and mobile clinic to the municipalities of Quezon and Bongabon through simple donations. But even if the donations were made out of benevolence or patriotism, the court said it must adhere to R.A. 7160, the Local Government Code of 1991.
Section 379 of R.A. 7160 provides that local government units (LGUs) are only allowed to dispose of properties that have become unserviceable for any cause or is no longer needed. But in this case, the court said there is no proof that the vehicles were unserviceable.
Joson argued in his motion for reconsideration that his convictions were based on facts not alleged in the Information, so this violated his constitutional right.
Meanwhile, Eduardo moved for a new trial based on purported recent development, which is the securing of a Certification issued by the Provincial General Services Officer that after the donation, the Provincial Government still had a sufficient number of vehicles.
The prosecution objected, maintaining that the Certification to which Eduardo was referring to is not newly-discovered evidence. The prosecution added that Tomas allegedly showed favoritism when he donated the vehicles to Eduardo who is his blood relative, and to Gamilla who happens to be his political ally.
But after reviewing their arguments "with a clearer and deeper understanding," the anti-graft court resolved to acquit the accused.
The court said in its resolution that the Information alleges neither the serviceability of the vehicles nor the violation by the donation of the rules on disposal of property.
"To rule that the system of property disposal need not be alleged in the Information is to lose sight of the constitutionally-guaranteed right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him," the resolution read.
At the same time, the court said the evidence fails to support a finding of manifest partiality among the accused. Even though Joson decided to donate to one out of five requesting municipalities, the court ruled that it is not sufficient proof that the donation is attended with manifest partiality.
"Without establishing the respective needs of the requesting municipalities, as well as which of said needs are more important, urgent, and outweigh the others, it is impossible to make a valid and fair deduction on whether, indeed, partiality was the motivating factor when the questioned donations were made," the resolution stated.
The 50-page resolution was written by Associate Justice Georgina Hidalgo with the concurrences of Associate Justices Bernelito Fernandez and Maryann E. Corpus-Mañalac. Seventh Division Chairperson Ma. Theresa Dolores Gomez-Estoesta and Associate Justice Zaldy Trespeses offered dissenting opinions.