Court upholds graft conviction of ex-PNP chief, five other officials
Jesus Verzosa
The Sandiganbayan has upheld the 2021 graft conviction of former Philippine National Police chief Jesus Verzosa and five other retired police officials in connection with the purchase of rubber boats and outboard motors for the PNP in 2009.
The antigraft court’s Third Division denied the motions for reconsideration filed by Verzosa and the other officers involved in the P131.5-million transaction, namely retired police Lieutenant Generals Benjamin Belarmino Jr. and Jefferson Soriano; retired Major Generals Luizo Ticman and Romeo Hilomen; and retired Brig. Gen. Villamor Bumanglag.
In their motions filed last year, the former PNP officials sought the reversal of the court’s June 25, 2021, decision that sentenced them each to six to eight years of imprisonment and barred them from public office.
‘Good faith’ argument
In a 23-page resolution issued on July 19, the court found no merit in Verzosa argument that invoked the Arias doctrine, which basically holds that superiors like him have to trust and rely on the “good faith’’ of subordinates involved in the bidding and negotiations, and that he as PNP chief “was not involved in the nitty-gritty of the procurement process.”
“As indicated in the assailed decision, accused-movant Verzosa should have noticed financial weakness of the suppliers and functional incompatibility of the PRBs (police rubber boats) and OBMs (outboard motors),” read the resolution penned by Associate Justice Bernelito Fernandez with concurrence of Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang and Associate Justice Ronald Moreno.
“Instead, he (Verzosa) remained silent, thus, his actions clearly showed manifest partiality,” the court added.
In the 2021 decision, Verzosa and the other officials—all former members of the national headquarter’s Bids and Awards Committee (BAC)—were found guilty of graft for proceeding with the procurement of the boats and the motors, which were later found to be incompatible.
They were found to have conspired with one another to give “unwarranted benefit, advantage and preference’’ to three suppliers—EnviroAire Inc., Geneve SA Corp. and Bay Industrial.
‘HOPE’
Verzosa was prosecuted also in his capacity as head of the BAC and the Inspection and Acceptance Committee (IAC).
He invoked good faith in approving the contract, citing his reliance on the IAC’s and BAC’s recommendations, but the court stressed that he played a significant role in the transaction as head of the procuring entity, the PNP.
“While he was not expected to actually determine the eligibility of the suppliers nor personally test the procured PRBs and OBMs, he, as HOPE (head of the procuring entity), carried with it the responsibility and the discretion of acting on recommendations of the BAC as well as effecting payments on approved transactions,” the Sandiganbayan said, adding:
“Considering that the amount involved in the procurement… his function as HOPE necessitated the exercise of extra diligence.”
No sea trial
The purchased boats did not undergo any sea trial, which the court also cited as a violation of the conditions set by the National Police Commission (Napolcom).
There was also no validation on Verzosa’s part, and “instead he merely relied on the recommendations of the BAC,” it added.
This rubber boat procurement was prompted by the lack of “water assets” that the PNP Maritime Group needed at the time, particularly when it had to perform rescue operations at the height of Typhoon “Ondoy” (international name: Ketsana) in 2009.
But the purchased boats—of the Zodiac FC470 Futura Commando models—proved to be unusable with the Mercury 60hp outboard motors that were supposed to propel the vessels.
In throwing out the motions filed by Soriano, Ticman and Bumanglag, the court noted: “It was actually the decision of the accused-movants to separate the procurement of the PRBs from the OBMs and their collective actions to procure and award the contracts to suppliers who could not provide compliant rubber boats compatible with 60hp outboard motors that led to the functional incompatibility.”
