The Sandiganbayan Third Division has dismissed a graft case against former Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA) chairman Alberto Collantes Agra after granting his demurrer to evidence, ruling that prosecutors failed to establish his participation in the execution of questioned reclamation agreements.

In a resolution dated June 5 and penned by Associate Justice Ronald B. Moreno, the court acquitted Agra and dismissed Criminal Case No. SB-24-CRM-0096, which had charged him with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

The case stemmed from three Memoranda of Agreement signed in 2021 between the PRA and the City of Bacoor covering reclamation projects in Bacoor Bay.

Prosecutors alleged that Agra acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross negligence in allowing the projects to proceed despite the asserted right of first refusal of Cavitex Holdings, Inc. (CHI) and the Province of Cavite under a 1994 joint venture agreement.

However, the court ruled that the prosecution failed to show that Agra “represented, directed, or instructed” the execution of the questioned agreements.

It noted that the MOAs were signed by then PRA general manager Atty. Janilo E. Rubiato pursuant to board resolutions, while Agra only signed as a witness.

The Sandiganbayan further held that no evidence was presented proving that Agra instructed the PRA board to enter into or approve the agreements, which was central to the charge against him.

It also ordered the lifting of the Hold Departure Order issued against Agra and the release of his cash bond following his acquittal.

In a separate concurring opinion, Sandiganbayan Third Division chairperson Associate Justice Karl B. Miranda said the case highlighted repeated reliance on administrative opinions from the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel and the Department of Justice instead of seeking a definitive ruling from the courts on the disputed right of first refusal.

However, he stressed that the criminal case was not the proper venue to resolve the validity of such claims.

Miranda added that while Agra should have been more cautious given prior government legal opinions recognizing CHI’s claim, the evidence did not show that he withheld information or acted with criminal intent.

He said Agra’s participation amounted at most to an error of judgment, not criminal negligence under the anti-graft law.

In another concurring opinion, Associate Justice Fritz Bryn M. Delos Santos noted that PRA functions like a regular stock corporation and that operational knowledge rests with its executive officers.

He said there was no proof that Agra, as board chairperson, was informed of the legal opinions cited by the prosecution, and that the case relied largely on presumption rather than concrete evidence.