Ex-cop fails to convince Sandigan anew

Ex-cop fails to convince Sandigan anew | Daily Tribune

An ex-cop involved in the alleged anomalous procurement of overpriced second-hand helicopters by the Philippine National Police in 2009 has failed anew to persuade the Sandiganbayan to have her graft case dropped.

In a minute resolution dated 19 March, the Sandiganbayan Seventh Division found no merit in Senior Police Officer 4 Linda Padojinog’s motion, seeking to reconsider the court’s February ruling.

Padojinog was among the police officers charged with violation of Section 3 (e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019) by the Ombudsman in 2012 over the PNP’s purchase of two Standard Robinson R44 Raven I Light Police Operational Helicopters costing P62.67 million and one Robinson R44 Raven II Light Police Operational Helicopter for P42.31 million from the Manila Aerospace Products Trading Corporation.

Ombudsman investigation revealed that only the Robinson R44 Raven II was brand new while the two Robinson R44 Raven I were second-hand and allegedly pre-owned by former first gentleman Mike Arroyo.

Graft probers flagged the deal, citing a resolution by the National Police Commission in 2008 mandating that the choppers must be procured brand new.

According to the Ombudsman, the PNP officers colluded with one another to conjure the three helicopters that were brand new, which were later discovered to be overpriced by P34.6 million.

Arroyo got off scot-free of the charges in October 2022.

Padojinog sought the Sandiganbayan’s consideration to drop the administrative charges against her after the Ombudsman dismissed the same. The anti-graft court, however, denied the plea last February.

“Any issue determined or resolved in the administrative case should not supersede the matters yet to be determined in the criminal case,” it said.

For the second time, Padojinog attempted to persuade the Sandiganbayan to overturn its February decision but was junked anew for her failure to raise new arguments that would warrant the reversal of the assailed decision.

“Despite attempts of the accused to sway the court towards reconsideration of its previous ruling, the former failed to present any argument of enough weight to achieve the same,” the court ruled.