MANILA, Philippines—Rodolfo Valencia and ALfonso Umali Jr. have moved on to become lawmakers, but their past acts as provincial officials of Oriental Mindoro nearly 15 years ago continue to hound them.

For granting a P2.5-million government loan to an owner of a ferryboat in 1993, Valencia, Umali and three others Tuesday were found guilty of graft by the Sandiganbayan.

The anti-graft court’s Fourth Division sentenced Valencia, Umali, Pedrito Reyes, Jose Enriquez and Jose Leynes, all provincial officials of Oriental Mindoro in 1993, to six years and one month to 10 years in prison.

It also imposed an “accessory penalty” perpetually disqualifying them from holding public office.

The anti-graft court also found the loan recipient—Alfredo Atienza—guilty of graft and meted out the same term of imprisonment on him.

“To apply government funds for the use of a private individual is a brazen violation of a prohibition mandated by law, that public funds shall not be applied to private purposes,” said the ruling penned by Associate Justice Jose Hernandez.

Associate Justices Gregory Ong and Samuel Martires concurred with the decision.

Only Leynes and Atienza showed up at Tuesday’s promulgation. They refused to talk to the media. The court was set to issue warrants for the arrest of Valencia, Umali, Reyes and Enriquez for skipping the promulgation, court staff said.

The crime is bailable.

Also charged for violation of Section 3 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act were Bayani Anastacio and Romualdo Bawasanta, who remain at large, and Nelson Gabutero, Remedios Marasigan, Bayani Anastacio and Jose Genilo Jr.

The case against Gabutero and Marasigan was dismissed at the prosecution panel’s prayer. The case against Anastacio and Genilo was also dismissed following their deaths.

Motion for reconsideration

Valencia and Umali said they would file a motion for reconsideration.

“We were surprised because ever since we don’t know any illegal act with what we did,” Valencia told the Philippine Daily Inquirer (parent company of INQUIRER.net). He said the purchases were made during a state of calamity and supported by a resolution of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (provincial council).

“I have to abide by the resolution of the Sanggunian,” said Valencia, one of the top 10 wealthiest members of the 14th Congress with a net worth of more than P150 million. “We are confident that the legality of what we did will be upheld,” he added.

When the loan was granted, Valencia was governor and Reyes, vice governor. Anastacio, Bawasanta, Cueto, Enriquez, Gabutero, Genilo, Leynes and Marasigan were board members. Umali was the provincial administrator.

In December 1993, provincial legal officer Ben delos Reyes informed treasurer Manuel Leycano of the provincial government’s intention to loan P2.5 million to Atienza, according to the court.

On Dec. 22, 1993, the provincial board passed Resolution No. 284-93 authorizing Valencia, then governor, to enter into a credit agreement extending the loan to Atienza for the operation of MV Ace.

The ferryboat was supposed to ply the Calapan-Batangas sea route.

All elements of graft present

In January 1994, the government entered into a loan agreement with the Land Bank of the Philippines, which issued a check for P2.5 million. The government then issued a promissory note to the bank.

Leycano wrote Valencia to say the credit agreement needed the concurrence of the provincial board and required an audit review, arguing that Atienza should not be granted the loan because he was a private individual.

The governor stood pat on his decision and issued a memorandum directing Leycano to immediately release the loan.

Umali certified that the expense was necessary and lawful in the disbursement voucher. The voucher, which Valencia signed, indicated that a check of P2.5 million was received by Atienza.

In its 29-page ruling, the Sandiganbayan junked the motion to dismiss filed by the accused in 2007.

The court noted that the elements of graft under Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act were present.

These are: the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions, he must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence and that his action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government.

Not serve public purpose

“The fact that the use of the P2.5 million by accused Atienza under the credit agreement did not serve any public purpose, as it was only meant to finance the cost of the repair and operation of his vessel, made the contract grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government,” the court said. With a report from Norman Bordadora and Madonna T. Virola, Inquirer Southern Luzon