Article by:
Benjamin Pulta
MANILA – The Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by a former Nueva Ecija lawmaker who challenged the Office of the Ombudsman’s findings to indict him in connection with Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) irregularities in 2007.
In a resolution uploaded online on Friday, the SC First Division affirmed the resolutions of the Ombudsman in 2016 and 2017 finding probable cause to charge former Nueva Ecija 4th District Rep. Rodolfo Antonino with malversation and violation of Republic Act (RA) 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act regarding the utilization of his allotment of PDAF, also known as pork barrel.
“Petitioner (Antonino) failed to show that the Ombudsman acted in a capricious and whimsical manner,” the SC said, adding that it “defers to the discretion of the Ombudsman considering that its finding of probable cause to indict petitioner (Antonino) for two counts of malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code and two counts of violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 is fully supported by the evidence on record.”
The cases arose from a request made by Antonino for the immediate release of PHP15 million for livelihood projects.
Upon the issuance of a notice of cash allocation by the Department of Budget and Management on Feb. 23, 2007, Antonino requested then Agriculture Secretary Arthur Yap to transfer the PHP15 million to the National Agribusiness Corporation (Nabcor).
Nabcor entered into a memorandum of agreement with the Buhay Mo Mahal Ko Foundation Inc. (BMMKFI), identified as project implementer.
On March 22, 2007, BMMKFI procured from CC Barredo Enterprises 7,275 sets of Livelihood Technology Kits (LTKs) at PHP2,000 per set for a total of PHP14.550 million.
Nabcor deducted PHP450,000 as management fee from the lawmaker’s PDAF allocation.
The LTKs were to be distributed to seven constituent municipalities and the city of the congressional district.
The Ombudsman Field Investigation Unit discovered that no LTKs were distributed to the intended beneficiaries and the designation of the project implementers were undertaken “without complying with the technical, legal and financial qualifications of a supplier or contractor” as well as provisions of the Government Procurement Act on the conduct of competitive public bidding.
The Ombudsman also found that BMMKFI’s selection was without any appropriation law or ordinance, violating National Budget Circular No. 476, which only allows a direct release of PDAF allocations to government agencies expressly identified in the project menu of the pertinent General Appropriations Act.
Antonino denied the charges and claimed his signatures were falsified in documents which purportedly show that he gave his PDAF allocation to Nabcor and BMMKFI.
He also denied the selection of BMMKFI and CC Barredo in the livelihood projects, adding he was unaware of such projects.
The Ombudsman ruled in 2017 that it is the legislator who exercises actual control and custody of the PDAF share allocated to him.
In denying Antonino’s challenge to the Ombudsman's findings, the SC cited that it “maintains non-interference in the Ombudsman’s determination of the existence of probable cause”.
“This stems from the Ombudsman’s constitutional mandate to investigate and prosecute illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient acts of public officials,” adding that the lawmaker’s defense of forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by convincing evidence in a full-blown trial. (PNA)
Log in with Google