The Department of Justice on Thursday said four individuals, including former senior officials of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), have been placed under the government’s Witness Protection Program (WPP), while two others were excluded following evaluation.

Prosecutor General Richard Anthony Fadullon said those admitted as state witnesses are former DPWH Undersecretary Roberto Bernardo, former DPWH engineers Henry Alcantara and Gerard Opulencia, and private contractor Sally Santos.

“Covered of WPP are former DPWH Undersecretary Roberto Bernardo, former DPWH engineer Henry Alcantara, former DPWH engineer Gerard Opulencia, and private contractor Sally Santos,” Fadullon said.

Acting Justice Secretary Fredderick Vida said the four witnesses returned a total of P316.351 million and would be discharged from criminal liability in relation to the specific cases in which they are cooperating.

“They were the ones who returned a total of P316,351,000. One of the rights of state witnesses sa under the programa is to be discharged from criminal liability, only in this particular case the are helping us,” Vida said.

Vida clarified that the discharge applies only to cases covered by their cooperation and depends on the evidence they provide.

“And all the evidence they will provide that we will utilize,” he said, adding that the WPP allows the admission of state witnesses when their testimony is necessary to strengthen a case, subject to conditions.

Fadullon said two former DPWH engineers, Brice Hernandez and Jaypee Mendoza, were not qualified for inclusion in the program based on the DOJ’s assessment.

He said that based on the evaluation of the evidence submitted by the two, they did not qualify as state witnesses eligible for discharge under the WPP.

Fadullon declined to disclose details of the assessment, saying there is currently no need to admit them into the program.

“Suffice it to say that now, we cannot see the need for them to be discharge to the WPP,” he said, adding that their exclusion does not preclude them from possibly testifying in future cases.

Fadullon also clarified that their exclusion does not automatically mean they will be allowed to testify in future proceedings.