The Sandiganbayan sentenced on Thursday former Occidental Mindoro Rep. Jose Villarosa to a maximum of 90 years’ imprisonment, after finding him guilty of allowing quarrying operations in San Jose town without permits from the provincial governor.
In a 20-page decision, the antigraft court’s First Division held Villarosa liable for nine counts of violating Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
For each count, he was meted the penalty of imprisonment from a minimum of six years and one month to a maximum of 10 years. He was also perpetually disqualified from public office.
Villarosa was accused of unlawfully issuing extraction permits to private quarrying operators when he was San Jose mayor from 2010 to 2013. Section 138 of the Local Government Code of 1991, however, allows only the provincial governor to regulate and levy taxes on extraction activities.
The questioned permits were issued to Gem CHB Maker, Timoteo Aguilar, Arvi Dolojan, Andres Pablo, R. D. Go Concrete Products, Jojo Pojas, Emilia T. De Lara, Antonio Villaroza, and Jessie Glass and Aluminum Enterprise, from September 2010 to June 2011.
Good faith
In its decision, the court rejected Villarosa’s claim that the provincial governor’s exclusive authority is not vested in the absence of a valid provincial ordinance. It said Section 138 of the LGC was a clear and explicit provision.
Villarosa also could not claim he was acting on good faith because he defied a cease and desist order issued by the provincial environment office, it said.
While Villarosa denied profiting from quarrying activities, the decision said that the fact that the San Jose municipality did not sustain any injury was irrelevant.
Citing the profits of the quarrying operators, the court said he violated Section 3(e) of the graft law’s prohibition on giving any private party unwarranted benefits.
“These private individuals clearly benefited from the illegal issuance by the accused of the extraction permits since this paved the way for them to conduct extraction and quarrying activities without the proper authorization—presumably, to their own profit and advantage, for why else would they persist even after repeated notices that the activities they were engaged in were illegal?” the decision read.