The Sandiganbayan on Wednesday reversed its earlier decision to stop two key witnesses in the $30-million extortion case against former transportation official Al Vitangcol III from testifying through video conferencing.
The anti-graft court’s Sixth Division said in a resolution it would now allow the motion for partial reconsideration of the prosecution after it presented enough evidence on the inability of former Czech ambassador to the Philippines and current ambassador to Chile Josef Rychtar and Inekon board chairman Josef Husek to testify in open court.
Vitangcol was charged with two counts each of grave misconduct, serious dishonesty, and unlawful solicitation and imposed upon him the penalty of dismissal from service with cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification from holding public office.
Vitangcol was also accused of putting pressure on the Inekon representatives to enter into a joint venture agreement with his supposed “envoy” Wilson De Vera for the contract.
Separate graft charges had also been filed against Vitangcol in connection with the alleged anomalous awarding of the MRT 3’s $1.15-million maintenance contract to PH Trams and its joint venture, Comm Builders and Technology Philippines Corp., in October 2012.
The pieces of evidence include printouts of alleged e-mail correspondence between Rychtar and Husek, which were earlier kept confidential for reasons of privacy.
However, the contents of the e-mail messages were not allowed by the court to be used as evidence against Vitangcol.
“The Court, after examining the said printouts, and in the interest of justice, resolves to grant the prosecution’s motion. Said printouts, which essentially explained the reason for the inability of said witnesses to travel to the Philippines to testify in the present cases, do not constitute a part of the prosecution’s evidence in chief,” the Sandiganbayan said.
Last April, the anti-graft court denied the testimonies of Rychtar and Husek through real-time video conferencing for lack of merit.
It said the two should have testified in open court as provided under Section 1, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
Ombudsman prosecutors appealed the ruling, claiming they had exerted efforts to have Rychtar and Husek returned to the Philippines.
But due to an absence of a bilateral agreement on the matter between the Philippines and the Czech Republic, the two cannot be compelled to return to the Philippines.
In his opposition to the motion, Vitangcol said that allowing the testimonies through video conferencing might prejudice his case since his lawyers and the Sandiganbayan would not be allowed to personally examine the witnesses.
The Sandiganbayan said: “This Court shall discontinue the video conferencing if it appears that technical issues, if any, will cause the violation or tend to cause the violation of the rights of the accused.”
Rychtar is scheduled to give his testimony on Aug. 31 at 8:30 am, and Husek on Sept. 7 at 1:30 pm.
