Former Armed Forces of the Philippines Chief of Staff Gen. Diomedio P. Villanueva has been acquitted by the Sandiganbayan of a graft charge in connection with the reportedly anomalous P53-million refund he gave to Philpost USA.
The anti-graft court’s First Division cleared him of the charge due to the prosecution’s failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. As a result, his P30,000 bail and hold-departure order have been lifted.
Villanueva, who was then Postmaster General of the Philippine Postal Corp., was accused of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, also known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, with former Assistant Postmaster General Antonio Siapno and acting director of the Accounting Department Leonido Basilio.
On Nov. 19, 2003, Villanueva and his co-accused reportedly acted “with evident bad faith, manifest partiality, and gross inexcusable negligence” when they gave unwarranted benefits to Philpost USA, a private corporation established to provide remail international services to residents of the US using Philippines postage.
Under their licensing agreement, they paid the corporation $1,031,936.04 or P53,043,834.52 for the Terminal Dues for Mail Matters sent to Royal Mail in the United Kingdom.
During his arraignment on Aug. 10, 2018, Villanueva entered a not guilty plea. The warrants of arrest of his co-accused remain unserved.
In its 13-page decision, the anti-graft court said that the presumption of Villanueva’s innocence was not overcome by the prosecution.
It is undisputed that the refund was initiated by a letter from PhilPost USA, after it has duly paid the PPC the terminal dues for 2001. Villanueva then referred the request to his co-accused, Siapno, who sought the opinion of other PPC officials.
“Notably, accused Villanueva cannot be said to have acted with bias as he did not misrepresent anything to Siapno with regard to the refund sought, nor did he persuade or influence the latter into agreeing with the refund,” the Sandiganbayan ruled.
“Also, there was no showing that accused Villanueva stood to gain anything should a refund be effected. Similarly, bad faith cannot be ascribed to his actions as the records are wanting that he was motivated by a dishonest purpose or ill will in seeking Siapno’s recommendation, and eventually, in approving the refund,” it added. (Czarina Nicole O. Ong)
