Former Iloilo 5th District congressman Niel “Junjun” C. Tupas Jr. and his two co-accused former government officials have been acquitted by the Sandiganbayan of the alleged misuse in 2008 of his P4.85 million Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF).
In its 63-page decision promulgated on Sept. 12 and written by Sandigabayan's Fourth Division Chairperson Michael Frederick L. Musngi, the anti-gratf court's Special Fourth Division acquitted Tupas of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (RA) 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents under Article 217 in relation to Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
The anti-graft court also acquitted of the same charges two of his co-accused, namely, Rhodora Bulatao Mendoza and Romulo Magahis Relevo, both former officials of National Agribusiness Corporation (NABCOR).
On the other hand, three other accused remain at large since the Sandiganbayan issued arrest warrants against them on April 5, 2019.
The three are former NABCOR president Alan Alunan Javellana, former NABCOR accountant Ma. Julie A. Villaralvo-Johnson, and private individual Marilou L. Antonio of the non-government organization (NGO) Kabuhayan at Kalusugan Alay sa Masa Foundation Inc. (KKAMFI).
The court ordered that the cases against Javellana, Johnson and Antonio “sent to the archives without prejudice to the continuation of the trial upon their apprehension.”
Tupas was accused of having given “unwarranted benefits and advantage” to KKAMFI when he picked the NGO to receive funds worth P4.85 million from the then legislator’s PDAF in 2008 to implement livelihood projects which were found to be non-existent.
In dismissing the graft cases, the Sandiganbayan said that of the three elements of the crime, the prosecution failed to prove the second element that they “acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence.”
“In criminal cases, it is a settled principle that all of the elements of the crime must be proven beyond reasonable doubt in order to convict the accused. Considering that the prosecution failed to prove the second element of the crime charged, the accused cannot be found guilty of committing violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019,” it ruled.
Contrary to the allegations of the prosecution that KKAMFI should have undergone a bidding process before being selected to implement the livelihood projects, the anti-graft court pointed out “the prosecution evidence showed that the said requirement should have been done by the DA (Department of Agriculture) as the implementing agency indicated in the GAA (General Appropriations Act), and not by accused Tupas who was a District Representative, and consequently not by accused Mendoza and Relevo who were from NABCOR.”
It cited that prior to the 2013 Supreme Court (SC) ruling that declared PDAF or pork barrel as unconstitutional, the Sandiganbayan said “PDAF transactions are necessarily post-enactment in nature and the lawmakers concerned were given discretion as regards the purpose and beneficiaries/recipients of such funds.”
“In view of the above pronouncements as applied to the instant cases, the Court is not convinced that accused Tupas’ recommendations of KKAMFI amounts to manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence as he had, at that time, the authority to participate in the post-enactment phase of project implementation, which was sanctioned through a recognized informal practice. The same can be said of accused Mendoza and Relevo, as they relied on the premise that accused Tupas can set the direction in the utilization of his discretionary funds,” it said.
Also, the court cited “there was already a MOA (memorandum of agreement) between NABCOR and KKAMFI which prompted, authorized or became the basis for the preparation of the DVs (disbursement vouchers).”
In dismissing the malversation case, the Sandiganbayan said that of the four elements of the crime, the prosecution failed to prove the fourth element which should show that the accused “appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented, or through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them.”
“No other evidence was presented to show the fund was reverted into the hands of the accused. Thus, the conclusion that the accused public officials appropriated, took or misappropriated the subject amounts has no legal nor factual left to stand on,” it also ruled.