Sandiganbayan (File photo)
MANILA – The Sandiganbayan has acquitted former officials of the Orani Water District (OWD) in Bataan province of graft, reversing a January decision that stemmed from the alleged appointment of a disqualified board member in 2010.
In a 13-page resolution made public Tuesday, the anti-graft court’s 5th Division set aside the conviction of Edmund Lee Castañeda, Teresa Santos, and Reynaldo Ibe Jr. for alleged violations of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
"(T)he court finds that the accused substantially complied with the requirements in exercising their substituted authority to appoint a board member. There appears no procedural infirmity from the time that they posted notices or announcement regarding the vacancy in the board," the tribunal ruled.
On Nov. 15, 2010, the accused OWD officials issued Board Resolution 19 appointing Ibe as the fifth member of the Board of Directors despite his temporary disqualification from holding a government post since he ran in the May 2010 local elections.
According to the prosecution, Ibe’s appointment cost the government PHP274,000, representing the per diems and allowances he received.
In their motion for reconsideration, the three claimed they did not overstep their authority and merely exercised their mandate after giving notice to then-mayor Benjamin Serrano.
The accused also claimed they were not aware of the one-year appointment ban imposed on losing candidates after an election as they are not lawyers.
They countered that there was no circular or memorandum from the Local Water Utilities Administration regarding the disqualification of a person to be appointed board member of a water district if such appointment occurred within one year from the time the appointee ran in an election.
The previous decision handed the trio prison terms ranging from six to eight years with perpetual disqualification from holding public office because they did not inquire more about Ibe's qualifications and disqualifications.
"To the mind of the Court, the prohibition is clear and there is no room for interpretation," the January ruling read. (PNA)
