Vitangcol coaccused asks court nod to spend Valentine’s abroad

Al Vitangcol, former MRT general manager. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO / GRIG C. MONTEGRANDE

A coaccused of former Metro Rail Transit (MRT 3) General Manager Al Vitangcol III has asked the Sandiganbayan to allow him to travel abroad to spend Valentine’s Day with his wife.

In a motion before the antigraft court third division, Wilson de Vera, who faces graft charges over the MRT maintenance contract mess, asked the court to lift the hold departure order against him.

De Vera asked the court to allow him to travel to California from Feb. 6 to 20 to visit his wife Mariezel de Vera, who was diagnosed with menorrhagia and adnexal mass and underwent surgery last month.

“Moreover, the accused wants to spend Valentine’s Day with his wife on Sunday, Feb. 14, 2016,” his motion also said.

De Vera said he would be willing to post a travel bond should the court allow him to travel to visit his wife.

“During the pendency of this case, the accused has shown good moral character when he immediately submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court upon learning of the cases against him and posted a cash bond even before a warrant of arrest could be issued against him,” the motion said.

De Vera also vowed not to flee his charges, citing the need to return to the Philippines to take care of his ailing father Domingo de Vera, who was diagnosed with end stage renal disease secondary to diabetic nephropathy.

His father undergoes hemodialysis twice a week in Dagupan City, Pangasinan, according to De Vera.

Vitangcol and De Vera are charged with graft for the awarding without public bidding of the maintenance contract for the MRT 3 to Philippine Trans Rail Management and Services Corp. (PH Trams).

De Vera is an incorporator of PH Trams.

Vitangcol is also accused of deliberately hiding that one of the PH Trams incorporators—Arturo Soriano—is the uncle of his wife.

Besides the graft charge, Vitangcol and De Vera are also accused of extorting $30 million from Inekon Group CEO and chair Josef Husek at the residence of then Czech Ambassador to the Philippines Josef Rychtar in exchange for granting Inekon the P3.7-billion contract to supply 48 coaches for the MRT 3 expansion. The money was later reduced to $2.5 million.

The Ombudsman is still investigating the alleged bribery.

According to the Ombudsman investigation, the contract was awarded to PH Trams in a negotiated procurement in October 2012 even though there was no emergency situation to justify it.

The MRT management entered into an interim maintenance contract with PH Trans in joint venture with CB&T in October 2012 after deciding not to renew the contract with original maintenance provider Sumitomo Corp.

The contract, which was renewed three times until September 2013, was worth $1.15 million monthly.

Securities and Exchange Commission records also showed that PH Trams was two months old when the project was awarded, having been incorporated only on August 2012 with a paid-up capital of only P625,000.00.

READ: MRT fiasco: Vitangcol indicted for graft, Abaya spared 

In his motion for reconsideration, Vitangcol questioned why Transportation Secretary Joseph Emilio Abaya was not included in the graft indictment.

Abaya is the acting Liberal Party president.

“Vitangcol performed the duties as general manager of MRT 3 … It was the DOTC, which decided to proceed with the interim award … It is just unfortunate that Vitangcol suddenly took all the blame in the contract where he is merely a part of the team,” his motion said.

READ: Why spare Abaya? Vitangcol asks Ombudsman 

The accused are facing charges of violating Section 3(e) and 3(h) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 prohibits public officials from causing any undue injury to any party, including the government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.

Meanwhile, Section 3(h) of the antigraft law prohibits public officials from directly or indirectly having financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or transaction in connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or in which he is prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from having any interest.

Section 65(c)(1) of R.A. 9184 punishes the act of “submit[ting] eligibility requirements of whatever kind and nature that contain false information or falsified documents calculated to influence the outcome of the eligibility screening process or conceal such information in the eligibility requirements when the information will lead to a declaration of ineligibility from participating in public bidding.” RC