SC okays filing of graft raps against ex-Nueva Ecija solon

The Supreme Court has upheld a resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman recommending the indictment of former Rep. Rodolfo Antonino (Nueva Ecija, 4th Dist.) for two counts of graft and malversation in connection with the alleged anomalous use of his P15-million Priority Development Assistance Fund or pork barrel funds for 2007.

In a 13-page ruling, the SC’s Third Division denied the petition filed by Antonino seeking the reversal of the Ombudsman resolution issued on January 11, 2017, on the ground of grave abuse of discretion.

The high court tossed out Antonino’s claim that the documents used as basis of the Ombudsman’s filing of the charges against him were spurious, and that his signatures thereon were forged.

Antonino was referring to the documents authorizing and signifying the release of his pork barrel funds to the Department of Agriculture (DA), National Agri-Business Corporation (NABCOR) and Buhay Mo Mahal Ko Foundation, Inc. (BMMKFI).

He argued that his 2007 PDAF allocations were transferred to the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) and that his priority projects were implemented by the same agency through NE4 Incorporated.

According to Antonino, this was confirmed by the Department of Budget and Management when it released a copy the Special Allotment Release Order (SARO) indicating DSWD as the implementing agency of the first tranche of his PDAF.

The former lawmaker thus asserted that he could not have assigned the same tranche of his PDAF to another agency.

In its decision, the Ombudsman noted that Antonino requested and directly endorsed NABCOR and BMMKFI to the DA as implementors of his livelihood training kits (LTK) project.

It noted that on March 22, 2007, BMMKFI through Antonino, exclusively procured from C.C. Barredo 7,275 sets of LTKs worth P2,000.00 each or a total of P14.55 million.

A day later, the supplier allegedly delivered the LTKs in Roxas Blvd. where the materials were accepted and acknowledged by Antonino.

But upon actual field verification, it was established that the purported project was a “ghost project” as several local officials of Nueva Ecija denied ever receiving any of the LTKs.

The Ombudsman said the project was not supported by any project proposal, physical and audited financial reports, monitoring reports or due diligence conducted in the supplier and NGO-selection process.

There was also no public bidding or any procurement conducted for the project.

But the SC held that Antonino’s defense of forgery should be raised and resolved during the trial, not during the preliminary investigation stage.

“At any rate, the Ombudsman made prima facie comparison of petitioner’s signatures, on the alleged spurious documents and his signatures on the documents he claimed to be authentic. The Ombudsman

concluded that the signatures appear to have been written by one and the same person,” the SC ruled.

“This finding, at least for the purpose of determining probable cause, should be regarded with utmost respect as it is supported by substantial evidence,” the resolution stated.

The tribunal also noted that based on the Ombudsman’s investigation, it was discovered that the petitioner himself requested for his PDAF to be allocated to the DA and transferred to NABCOR , an unlisted project implementor for the 2007 General Appropriations Act (GAA).

The petitioner likewise requested BMMKFI, as project implementor despite not being in the list.

“Thus, the Ombudsman could not have been guilty of grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause to indict petitioner for violating Sec. 3 ( e ) of Republic Act 3019 (Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and malversation,” the SC stressed.

“On the face of the documents and evidence on record, it seems that petitioner misappropriated his PDAF by making it appear that the same was used in his livelihood projects and approved the transfer of his PDAF to unauthorized agencies, which was properly considered by the Ombudsman in determining the existence of probable cause that he committed malversation,” the SC said.