[] High court again strikes down usual defenses of prosecuted mayors.
[] Former mayor, now councilor of Corella town, perpetually disqualified from public office and slapped with four jail terms topped by two six-to-10-years sentences.
INTERESTING sidelights of the four corruption cases filed against Vito Beltran Rapal, former Corella, Bohol mayor and incumbent town councilor, involved these:
One. The P1.088 million in cash advances then mayor Rapal was accused of not having liquidated included confidential and intelligence funds, which town mayors apparently had access to. Confidential and intelligence funds recently set off a Senate inquiry over their use by civilian officials, notably the vice president.
Two. The P92,239 cash that Rapal was accused of not remitting to the municipal government and instead using it for his personal purpose was the share of Corella from the income of the Philippine Tarsier Sanctuary in the town. The wildlife refuge in Corella and the zoo in Bilar, also featuring Tarsiers, are Bohol tourist attractions.
NOT A COMPLICATED CASE. Even though there were four “information” -- on such crimes as corruption under the Graft & Corrupt Practices Act and estafa and failure to render accounts under the Revised Penal Code -- the Sandiganbayan acquitted Rapal in two crimes for failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and convicted him of four crimes. And the Supreme Court (SC) affirmed all the convictions.
There were only few witnesses for the prosecution, the defense had only one -- the mayor’s lone self -- and the SC resolution of the First Division was contained in only 16 pages. Yet it took the court litigation about nine years to complete, from the February 7, 2014 filing of the batch of “information” -- covering the mayor’s transactions from October 2008 to June 2009 -- to the high court’s ruling two months ago.
CONFIDENTIAL, INTEL FUNDS. Who said those funds are accessible only to military, police, and other services engaged in surveillance and other intelligence-gathering activities? Or the name was just used for certain programs or projects of civilian officials like then mayor Rapal.
The SC ruling, which affirmed the conviction of Rapal in four criminal cases by the Sandiganbayan last October 4, 2019, said the mayor used the confidential and intel funds for “monitoring insurgents, intelligence gathering, and legitimate travel.” That, on top of “travel and miscellaneous funds.” The SC decision was promulgated on August 16, 2023 yet but released for publication only September 28.
And Rapal failed to liquidate them, which must raise the question, Are confidential and intel funds not exempt from liquidation since their use is purportedly secret?
Rapal, of course, was held accountable not just for those funds; his cash advances also covered other purposes.
MONEY FROM TARSIER. The Tarsier is said to be “native to the Philippines, a nocturnal, tiny primate that leaps between tree branches” in the forests of Bohol, with Corella as its known sanctuary.
Rapal, the Sandiganbayan found out, ordered that the town’s share of the Tarsier Fund be given to him. It was but he allegedly didn’t turn over the cash to the treasurer. In court, he denied he receives the P92,000 plus and ascribed ill motive to the two persons who said they gave it to him.
USUAL DEFENSES THAT DIDN’T STAND. Then mayor Rapal, like many other local officials charged with corruption, argued that he didn’t make the liquidations himself and trusted that they were being properly made as “they were continuously approved” and he kept getting the cash advances.
The SC ruling noted though one testimony that said the mayor “will got angry to the employees (sic)” if he wasn’t promptly given the cash advance. The angry-mayor stance has appeared in a number of cases of corruption that reach the anti-graft court.
The claims that the mayor didn’t prepare the liquidation documents himself and subordinates did it for him or he didn’t know what he was signing usually cannot stand court scrutiny. And Rapal’s did not.
HE DENIED GETTING TARSIER CASH. Rapal’s denial that he didn’t receive the share of the town from the Tarsier income was quickly shot down by the SC, which said he offered no proof. Prosecutors, on the other hand, presented the summary of collections and report on income, which the mayor’s signature and testimony of the persons who turned over the money affirmed.
“Between the prosecution’s hard evidence” and the mayor’s “bare denial,” the state lawyers’ accusation “must prevail.”
Not helping Rapal was the “bad faith” the SC found in (a) the mayor’s order to give the Tarsier cash to him instead of directly to the treasurer and (b) the mayor’s attempt to discredit the evidence by claiming that the witnesses had ill motive to blame him for the loss.
SPLITTING HAIRS. Here are apparent attempts of Rapal to escape liability by using fine legal technicalities regarding evidence:
[] There was no direct proof that he used the money for personal purpose, Rapal said, asking in effect, "Where is the evidence of personal use?" The SC said the evidence is circumstantial but adequate and rightful. Since he failed to liquidate the money given him as cash advance, the failure points to the use for a purpose not intended by the law. The duty to account also came with the money entrusted or otherwise placed in his hands, such as the Tarsier fund.
[] Undue injury to the Government, Rapal argued along the same line, “Cannot be said with certainty” from the “simple fact” that the cash advances were unliquidated. How did the Sandiganbayan know that the money was unlawfully used and thereby caused the undue injury? How sure was the anti-graft court that its use didn’t benefit the Government and personally benefited only Rapal? Or so the argument ran.
But the SC slammed it thus: It is enough that there is “some reasonable basis by which the court can measure the extent of the loss or damage,” the SC said. The liquidation process gives the accountable officer the chance to show that the spending was for the intended public purpose. Failure to do so provides the indirect evidence raises the presumption that it was not.
PURPOSE OF LIQUIDATION. “The very purpose of liquidation,” the SC ruling said, “is to ensure that public funds are being used strictly in accordance with the public purposes they are intended to fulfill and to prevent the misuse of public funds for illegal or improper purposes.”
It would be “the height of injustice for the Government to trace and account for un-liquidated funds in the hands of a public office before injury to the Government can be established,” the SC said.
Rapal’s theory of non-liquidation would want prosecutors to prove actual undue injury before he could be held liable for the fund loss. Which could’ve been shown to exist or not to exist by the fact of liquidation.