“Courts are not the forum to plead for sympathy. The duty of courts is to apply the law, disregarding their feeling of sympathy or pity for an accused."

Thus declared the Sandiganbayan as it turned down the motion filed by former Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) Chief and ex-Rep. Prospero A. Pichay Jr. and Deputy Acting Administrator Wilfredo M. Feleo to reconsider the court’s decision that convicted them of three graft charges.

In his motion for reconsideration, Pichay highlighted the "disparity" between the offense charged emanating from bad business decision-making of a public official and entailing criminal liability.

"If every mistake, error, or oversight is met with criminal punishment, then qualified individuals would be hindered in serving the government," Pichay said.

In a resolution issued last Aug. 10, the anti-graft court said: “After turning all stones, the Court finds no sufficient justification to warrant abandonment of our earlier ruling.”

Pichay and Feleo were sentenced to a prison term ranging from 18 to 30 years in the purchase of the Express Savings Bank, Inc. (ESBI) when they were top LWUA officials in 2009.

But they were acquitted of the charges involving alleged violations of Section X126.2(c)(1)(2) of the Manual of Regulation for Banks in relation to Section 36 and 37 of Republic Act No. 7653 (the New Central Bank Act) for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The criminal charges arose from LWUA’s purchase of ESBI, a local thrift bank based in Laguna through WELLEX Group Inc. (WGI) and Forum Pacific Inc. (FPI).

The anti-graft court said that as head of the LWUA board, Pichay approved the acquisition of ESBI even without securing the regulatory approvals from the Monetary Board of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (MB-BSP), the Department of Finance (DOF), and the Office of the President.

"It cannot be denied that accused Pichay and Feleo knew of this requirement as they have been in consultation with the Office of the President, DOF, and BSP. They were specifically advised to secure prior approval of the Monetary Board. This advice was given before LWUA purchased the ESBI shares," the court said.

The court said that Pichay and Feleo may not have been impelled by "patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose," since they were merely carrying out a lawful mandate. However, the court pointed out that they carried out the task with "haphazardness and nonconforming ways."

"Even assuming that accused did not act in bad faith or with manifest partiality, their negligence under the circumstances was not only gross but also inexcusable," the court stressed.

Because the acts of Pichay and Feleo, the court said that LWUA acquired a 60 percent stake of ESBI worth P80 million, made a P300 million deposit in the bank, and a capital infusion worth P400 million.

They were faulted for giving unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference to ESBI owners and corporate and individual stockholders by transferring P780 million of LWUA funds to ESBI to increase the bank's authorized capital stock.

The transfer was made even if the bank had a realized value of negative P12,932,429 as of March 2009. For the years 2005 to 2009, the prosecution said ESBI faced continuous "substantial net losses and capital deficits."

The charges against their two co-accused, LWUA Board of Trustees member Enrique S. Montilla III and Acting Administrator Daniel Landingin, had been dismissed on account of their deaths.

Pichay and Feleo filed separate Motions for Partial Reconsideration and asked the anti-graft court to reverse their conviction. They argued that there was no gross inexcusable negligence or acts of conspiracy to commit the crime charged.

At the same time, they said that the prosecution failed to prove that their acts resulted in undue injury to the government or any party.

In his motion, Pichay even highlighted the "disparity" between the offense charged emanating from bad business decision-making of a public official and entailing criminal liability.

Their motions were denied in a resolution written by Associate Justice Lorifel L. Pahimna with the concurrence of Fourth Division Chairperson Michael Frederick L. Musngi and Associate Justice Edgardo M. Caldona.