Joel Reyes. REDEMPTO ANDA/INQUIRER SOUTHERN LUZON
The Sandiganbayan has ruled that there were sufficient grounds to indict former Palawan Gov. Mario Joel Reyes for graft in connection with the misuse of state fertilizer funds and to proceed with his trial.
In a 13-page resolution dated Dec. 1, the antigraft court’s Fifth Division denied the motions for judicial determination of probable cause separately filed by Reyes and Department of Agriculture (DA) Region 4 executive director Dennis Araullo.
Reyes and Araullo, along with DA regional technical director Rodolfo Guieb and Masaganang Ani Para sa Magsasaka Foundation, Inc. (Mamfi) officers Marina Sula and Nathaniel Tan, were accused of misusing P3.25 million under the Farm Inputs and Farm Implements Program in 2004.
The officials allegedly favored Mamfi to be the project implementer without a public bidding. The nongovernment organization also was not state-accredited.
The court said Reyes was “mistaken in claiming that there is no evidence to establish his responsibility and his participation in the conspiracy” because a memorandum of agreement (MoA) he had signed “clearly identifies” him as the official who chose and endorsed Mamfi as the conduit of the funds.
The former governor said prosecutors could not use as evidence Araullo’s statement that it was Reyes who had chosen Mamfi, but the court said it was premature for him to raise that argument.
The court also rejected Reyes’ claim that Palawan was just a beneficiary of the funds since the deal imposes obligations on the provincial government.
Since the MoA was a contract, the resolution said Reyes is “implicated” for signing it without authorization from the Sangguniang Panlalawigan required by the Local Government Code.
Regarding Araullo’s culpability, the court said there was evidence tending to show he “was remiss in his duties, and that he could have raised questions before signing” the MoA noting that Mamfi did not have the complete documents required by the Commission on Audit.
The court said that since the arguments so far relate to the existence of probable cause, “the final resolution of these matters should and will be threshed out in the trial of this case.”