Court acquits ex-Albay vice governor
The Sandiganbayan Third Division on Thursday acquitted former Albay Vice Governor Edcel Greco “Grex” Lagman of indirect bribery and violation of the Anti-Illegal Gambling Law during his incumbency.
The court said it found reasonable doubt in Lagman’s case, stressing that an acquittal was necessary under the constitutional presumption of innocence.
Recanted testimonies
Among the considerations of the Third Division was the decision of material witnesses to recant their statements, particularly those linking Lagman to “jueteng” operations in Albay.
The claims had tagged Lagman as a protector and coddler of the illegal gambling activity, allegedly receiving funds that reached P8 million from Alwin Nimo, former barangay chairman of Anislag in Daraga.
Without the witnesses’ testimonies, the court said the remaining evidence was a Toyota Fortuner allegedly used to deliver bribes and 60 bank deposit slips bearing Lagman’s name.
It said there were no statements to provide context on the corroborative role of the evidence in the allegations.
“Pursuant to the Rules on Evidence and related jurisprudence, the truth of the matters contained in these independently relevant statements cannot now be used to give context or assign corroborative roles to these remaining pieces of evidence,” the court said.
Given the doubts, the court said it could not infer whether Lagman was guilty of the charges.
Dissenting view
In his concurring and dissenting opinion, Third Division chairperson Associate Justice Karl Miranda said prosecutors were able to establish Lagman’s guilt for indirect bribery, albeit through circumstantial evidence.
Miranda maintained that crimes such as graft and corruption were “intrinsically covert offenses,” making direct evidence rarely available.
He argued that circumstantial evidence should be treated as “evidence in its own right,” rather than a fallback option when direct proof is absent.
While he agreed there was evidence supporting a violation of the anti-gambling law, he opposed Lagman’s acquittal for indirect bribery.
“The prosecution is not required to establish that the money received by the public officer originated from jueteng operations or that the public officer personally participated in or operated the illegal numbers game,” Miranda wrote.
“The essence of indirect bribery is the acceptance of gifts by reason of his public office,” he added.
Protection money claim
Miranda said the totality of the evidence supported the conclusion that the P60,000 weekly payments Lagman received were a form of “jueteng protection money.”
His position was based on Nimo’s public admission and the deposit slips, which he said showed the regularity of the payments and denominations consistent with collections from bettors.
“For Justice Miranda, these circumstances collectively supported the conclusion that the payments were made in expectation of Lagman’s protection of jueteng operations,” the court stated.
Probe sought
On the recantation of witnesses, Miranda urged the Office of the Ombudsman to investigate the circumstances behind the withdrawal of the statements.
He said the witnesses, if found to have been induced into making such statements, could face perjury charges under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code.