Sandiganbayan acquits ex-Albay vice gov of illegal gambling raps

The Sandiganbayan Third Division on Thursday proclaimed its decision to acquit former Albay Vice Governor Edcel Greco “Grex” Lagman for charges linked to indirect bribery and violation of the Anti-Illegal Gambling law during his incumbency.

In its decision, the court held that it found reasonable doubt with respect to Lagman’s case, maintaining that an acquittal was necessary in accordance with the constitutional presumption of innocence.

Among the considerations of the Third Division was the decision of material witnesses in the case to recant their statements, particularly those that linked the former vice governor to “jueteng” operations in Albay.

The claims reportedly tagged Lagman as a protector and coddler of the illegal gambling activity, accepting funds which allegedly reached P8 million from Alwin Nimo, the former barangay chairman of Anislag in Daraga.

Without the testimonies of the witnesses, the court said that the remaining evidence of the prosecution was a Toyota Fortuner which was allegedly used to deliver bribes and the 60 bank deposit slips which indicated the name of Lagman.

It further stated that the lack of statements to provide context regarding the corroborative roles of the evidence in the context of 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 in a summary of its decision.

Given the prevailing doubts, it stressed that it could not come up with an “inference” that determined whether or not Lagman was guilty of the charges.

Prosecution proved Lagman guilty of indirect bribery

In his concurring and dissenting opinion attached to the summary, Third Division chairperson Associate Justice Karl Miranda expressed belief that the prosecutors in the case were able to establish Lagman’s guilt for Indirect Bribery, albeit through circumstantial evidence.

Miranda maintained that crimes like graft and corruption were “intrinsically covert offenses,” leaving the presence of direct evidence rarely available.

The justice argued that circumstantial evidence had to be treated as “evidence in its own right” rather than a fallback option whenever there was no concrete proof that the acts were committed.

While he agreed with the evidence to support a theory that Lagman had violated the anti-gambling law, he opposed the former public official’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,” he wrote.

“The essence of Indirect Bribery is the acceptance of gifts by reason of his public office,” he added.

Miranda explained that he had found that the totality of evidence that was presented had supported the conclusion that the P60,000 in weekly payments that Lagman received were a form of “jueteng protection money.”

His position was reportedly drawn from the public admission of Nimo regarding the issue and the aforementioned deposit slips, finding that the regularity of the payments and denominations of the amounts were 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.

As for matters concerning the recantation of witnesses, Miranda reportedly urged the Office of the Ombudsman to investigate the circumstances behind the withdrawal of the statements to identify the veracity of the statements and whether such claims were deliberately falsified.

The justice said that the witnesses, if found to have been induced into making such statements, could be subjected to perjury charges with respect to Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code.