Nursing exam official appeals antigraft court ruling
Sandiganbayan building facade. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO
MANILA, Philippines—A former nursing board licensure examiner has appealed the Sandiganbayan ruling that found her guilty of graft in connection with the leak of test questions for the June 2006 Nursing Licensure Examination (NLE).
Former Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) Nursing Board examiner Anesia Buenafe Dionisio, through her lawyers Juan Victor S. Valdez and April D. Cabeza, filed a motion for reconsideration of the ruling on Nov. 29.
In the motion, Dionisio said she did not deserve the penalty of six years’ imprisonment, citing her decades in government service that were untainted by any hint of irregularity.
The antigraft court’s Fourth Division sentenced Dionisio to the prison term and barred her from ever holding public office again after it found her guilty of negligence in the custody of the test materials.
Dionisio had admitted asking Evelyn O. Asinas, a private secretary, to type up the exam questions for her.
She said she sought Asinas’ assistance because she was “computer illiterate” and had been suffering memory lapses following a bout with meningitis.
Dionisio argued that the prosecution failed to prove that she was motivated by profit or that she benefited from the leakage that cast doubt on the results of that year’s nursing board exams.
“The intent to willfully divulge for some pecuniary or material benefit or advantage is clearly lacking in the instant case. At best, the disclosure of the confidential information was the result of simple negligence which is not sufficient for a (graft) conviction,” her motion read.
Dionisio said the court held her liable for giving Asinas access to the test questions without the written permission of the PRC chair.
But even if she had secured a clearance for Asinas, Dionisio claimed, the leakage would still have happened. Thus, it was an “absurd conclusion” to separate the involvement of Asinas and the issue of a deliberate intent to leak the NLE questionnaire, she said.
“With all due respect, it would be an egregious error on the part of the honorable court to find the accused guilty due to simple negligence citing the blind adherence to the principle that a criminal intent is not necessary to be established in finding one liable (for graft). To do so would be a pure travesty,” Dionisio’s motion said.
