Thursday, May 08, 2008 Ex-Quirino guv convicted of graft
THE Sandiganbayan has convicted a former governor of Quirino Province of graft charges in connection with the purchase by the Provincial Government of second-hand heavy equipment machineries in 1996.
In a decision penned by Associate Justice Francisco Villaruz Jr., the anti-graft court sentenced former Quirino governor Josie Castillo Co to up to nine years in prison and ordered her to indemnify the Provincial Government in the sum of P330,490.78.
The amount represents the interest in the illegal advance payment released to Nakajima Trading Co. Ltd., a Japanese supplier.
At the same time, the court barred Co from holding any government position in the future.
Court records showed that on October 20, 1995, the Quirino Provincial Board passed a resolution authorizing the Provincial Government to purchase brand new heavy equipment at the recommended cost of P43.5 million to be loaned from the Philippine National Bank (PNB).
But in executing the resolution, Co did not follow what was stipulated therein as she caused the acquisition of second-hand machineries worth 160.42 million yen.
This was evidenced by the purchase agreement that Co signed with Nakajima for “reconditioned” units, which include a bulldozer, a backhoe, road grader, a water tank, dump truck and a 10-wheeler trailer truck.
In her defense, Co claimed that she acted on good faith because she made a prior consultation with lawyer Primo Marcos whom she identified as the province’s legal consultant.
But under questioning by members of the court during the trial of the case, Marcos admitted that he was not connected in any way to the Provincial Government.
Marcos described himself a “private legal consultant” instead.
At the same time, the court noted that there was no basis to Co’s claim that the 40 percent advance payment made to the supplier was necessary for delivery as it was found that there was no such provision in the supply contract.
The court held that Co committed the very act prohibited under Section 3 (g) of Republic Act (RA) 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, which made her crime a “malum prohibitum”.
“It is hornbook doctrine that in crimes which are malum prohibitum, the defense of good faith is not exculpatory. Thus, the defense of good faith of accused cannot prosper,” the court said. (Sunnex)
