THE SANDIGANBAYAN has acquitted former Malabon Mayor Amado Vicencio and six other city officials of graft charges stemming from the construction of the P122-million municipal hall in 1999.
Cleared along with Vicencio were Maria Lida Sarmiento, Pio Dadula, Virdeo Cruz, Laura Borja, Ernesto Pabustan and Payapa Ona, then members of the city’s Prequalification, Bids and Awards Committee.
They were accused of favoring the joint venture or consortium partnership of Sergcon Development Corp. and Principal Management Group Inc. by awarding them the P122 million contract to build the Malabon municipal hall (Malabon became a city in 2001).
Based on court records, the prosecution had argued that the joint venture did not have the required special license issued by the Philippine Contractors Accreditation Board. It also noted that the contract did not have the approval of the Office of the President.
But in a ruling penned by Presiding Justice Edilberto Sandoval, the antigraft court’s Second Division said the evidence presented failed to show that the contract had caused a P122-million injury to the government.
It added that the antigraft law was meant to stop public officers from defrauding the government and the people.
“The danger which the law seeks to address is not attendant in the instant case,” it said.
According to the court, the project was on a “turn-key” basis where the contractor would fund the project first and then collect payment after its completion.
“If the accused wanted to defraud the government, they would not have sought terms and conditions which will be most advantageous to the government,” it noted.
The court also said that the prosecution’s witness had testified that the Philippine National Bank, from which the Malabon government had obtained a loan, did not disburse a single centavo to the contractor.
It also noted that the prosecution had shifted its theory and presented evidence to show that payment was made for opening commission and documentary stamps in an attempt to show that the government had been put at a disadvantage.
“However, for this Court to allow such is in violation of the constitutionally-enshrined right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him,” it said.
The court added that for an accused to be sufficiently informed of the accusations, the acts that were the subject of the complaint and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language. These must also be included in the information or charge sheet, it said.