State prosecutors appealed the grant of bail to former police director Geary Barias, who faces trial for malversation and falsification of public documents over the alleged ghost repairs of police vehicles worth P385.5 million.
In its motion for reconsideration, the Office of the Special Prosecutor under the Ombudsman said the Sandiganbayan committed grave error in heavily relying on the case of former Bacolod city mayor Luzviminda Valdez who was granted bail for the complex crime of malversation.
On March 7,the anti-graft court granted the former National Capital Region Police Office chief bail in compliance with the Supreme Court ruling on Valdez that an accused charged with the complex crime of malversation through falsification of public documents is entitled to bail as a matter of right.
READ: Sandiganbayan grants bail to ex-police director Barias
The prosecutors argued that the facts of the Valdez case “are not on all fours” in the case of Barias and are therefore not applicable.
Valdez was accused of malversation by falsifying cash slips to receive an excess of reimbursement worth P274,306.75.
In the decision, the high court put an end to the perpetual question over whether or not malversation through falsification of public documents is a non-bailable offense.
In its December 2015 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the complex crime of malversation is not considered “hateful” and a “heinous” crime punishable with reclusion perpetua, which under the law is an offense for non-bailable offenses.
“Likewise, it is unjust for us to give a stamp of approval in depriving the accused person’s constitutional right to bail for allegedly committing a complex crime that is not even considered as inherently grievous, odious and hateful,” the high court ruled.
“To note, Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code on complex crimes does not change the nature of the constituent offenses; it only requires the imposition of the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law. When committed through falsification of official/public documents, the RPC does not intend to classify malversation as a capital offense,” the Supreme Court added.
The prosecution said in Valdez’s case, the accused was still at large when she filed a motion to fix bail, which the Sandiganbayan duly granted without conducting a hearing on whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong.
Meanwhile, in Barias’ case, the police director surrendered in 2013 to face the charges, but after conducting a bail hearing, his bail was denied by the Sandiganbayan because evidence of guilt is strong.
The prosecution maintained that the complex crime of malversation should be punishable with reclusion perpetua, and therefore non-bailable, contrary to what the Supreme Court ruled in its decision.
“In as much as Barias is herein charged for the complex crime of Malversation Through Falsification of Public Documents which is punishable by reclusion perpetua, then bail is discretionary and not a matter of right,” the prosecution said.
“The determination of the evidence of guilt is strong, in this regard, involves an exercise of judicial discretion,” it added.
“This Honorable Court, with all due respect, committed grave error in placing heavy reliance on the Valdez case,” the prosecution added.
Following its grant of bail for Barias, the Sandiganbayan Fourth Division had also granted bail to former Philippine National Police chief Avelino Razon Jr., who faces the same charges as well as graft over the alleged ghost repair of vehicles.
READ: Ex-PNP chief Razon posts bail for ghost vehicle repair case
Razon posted P520,000 bail from two counts of malversation through falsification of public documents and four counts of graft. Barias posted P400,000 bail for his two counts of malversation through falsification of public documents.
In allowing Razon and the other accused to post bail, the anti-graft court said because of the recent Supreme Court ruling, any accused in the complex crime of malversation with falsification of public documents is now entitled to bail.
“In line with this Court’s disposition in its Resolution of March 7, 2016 eventually granting accused Geary L. Barias’ motion to fix bail, and conformable to the Supreme Court’s recent decision…holding that bail is now a matter of right for those charged with the complex crime of malversation through falsification of public document, all accused similarly situated as accused Barias in these cases are now likewise allowed to secure their respective provisional liberties,” the court said.
The court had also reversed its earlier decisions which denied the accused bail due to strong evidence of guilt.
READ: Sandiganbayan denies bail plea of ex-PNP chief Avelino Razon
Razon, the first PNP official to face graft, was accused of conspiracy in the awarding of the project to a private contractor for the ghost repairs and maintenance of 28 V-150 light armored vehicles in 2007.
READ: Razon, Barias surrender to Sandiganbayan
According to the complaint filed by the Ombudsman, the contracts awarded to six firms in 2007 were riddled with violations of Commission on Audit (COA) regulations because the cost of repairs exceeded 30 percent of the acquisition cost.
The procurement process was also said to be anomalous due to lack of bidding documents, bidders, preprocurement conference and post-qualification process, and also due to ineligibility of the private suppliers to enter into the contract.
It also noted that there were ghost deliveries of engines and transmissions and that there were no records to show that the parts and engines of the vehicles were actually replaced.
The COA also found the payment for replacements of parts to be excessive.
“Despite these irregularities which would have prevented the questioned transactions from taking place, the accused still proceeded with the procurement. They facilitated the issuance of the purchase/work orders, disbursement vouchers, checks and other reports, wherein they specified that the materials were received in good order and condition; that the objects of purchase were okay as to quality and specifications; and that the supporting documents therefore were complete and proper,” the resolution read.
“As the reports…found otherwise, a presumption now exists that the accused resorted to a false narration of facts which was necessary for them to commit malversation,” it added. IDL