Sandigan junks 1 of 2 graft raps vs ex-CHED director Vitriolo

MANILA, Philippines — The First Division of the anti-graft court Sandiganbayan has dismissed one of the two graft cases against Commission on Higher Education executive director Julito Vitriolo in connection with the alleged “diploma mill” anomaly.

In a 16-page resolution promulgated on October 6, the First Division partially granted Vitriolo's motion filed on August 31 praying for the dismissal of his two graft cases which stemmed from allegedly allowing the state university, Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila, to issue diplomas and transcript of records to students despite the suspension of an education program.

The First Division dismissed the allegation of violation of Section 3 (a) of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices but ruled to proceed with a full-blown trial of the allegation of violation of Section 3 (e) of the same law.

Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 prohibits public official from giving unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference to a private party or from causing any party, including the government, undue injury.

Section 3 (a) of RA 3019, meanwhile, prohibits a public official from inducing or influencing a fellow public official to perform an act constituting a violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority.

Based on the information of the cases, Vitriolo, on June 1, 2010, permitted “verbally” the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila, through its acting university legal counsel Gladys France Palarca, to issue the transcript of records (TOR) to the graduates of Bachelor of Science and Masteral degrees in Physical Education.

The Office of the Ombudsman, which filed the cases on Aug. 14, 2017, said this verbal permit by Vitriolo unduly “persuade, induce, and/or influence” the PLM to issue not just the TORs but also the diplomas of the graduates.

The ombudsman said Vitriolo acted with “evident bad faith” as he had prior knowledge that as early as September 2008, then PLM president Adel Tamano had already suspended the university's Memorandum of Agreement with the National College of Physical Education (NCPE).

Under the MOA entered in 1996, the NCPE would use the PLM facility “without compensation” and offer programs for Bachelor of Science and Masteral degrees in Physical Education. The PLM, on the other hand, would select the faculty members for the agreed programs and issue diplomas to the graduates.

Based on the ombudsman's previous investigation, Tamano suspended the MOA in view of the 2007 Commission on Audit finding that the agreement was prejudicial to the interest of the university.

No allegation of remuneration

In its ruling, however, the First Division said the ombudsman's prosecution team failed to allege in the case information one of the key elements of the violation of Section 3 (a) of RA 3019 – which is the receipt of remuneration or consideration by the accused in exchange for his use of influence.

“In this case, there is no proof of any consideration in the use of the influence. It is not alleged in the [case] Information. There is no testimonial or documentary evidence to indicate or even conclude that accused Vitriolo received any renumeration or consideration,” the resolution penned by Associate Justice Geraldine Faith Econg read.

“There is no showing that his act of allegedly persuading, inducing and/ or influencing the PLM and its officials was for or in view of a consideration,” it added.

Associate Justices Efren De La Cruz and Edgardo Caldona concurred with the ruling.

The First Division, meanwhile, maintained that the case information against Vitriolo for violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 is sufficient in form and substance.

The court said Vitriolo's argument that “not a modicum of evidence appears in the records” to show that he exerted influence on the PLM officials through his supposed verbal permission, is a matter of defense “best threshed out in a full-blown trial”.

The First Division also found no merit on Vitriolo's claim that the ombudsman violated his constitutional right to speedy trial for supposedly taking to long to finish its investigation on the complaint against him. The court said records show that the criminal aspect of the complaint was resolved by the ombudsman within one year and three months.

It was in January of this year when the ombudsman dismissed Vitriolo from service for administrative offenses of grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, incompetence and inefficiency for supposedly failing to investigate and instead allowed the anomalous issuance of the diplomas and TORs.

The Court of Appeals, on August 17, ordered Vitriolo's reinstatement in CHED but the ruling is still under appeal by former PLM faculty member Oliver Felix, who filed the original complaint before the ombudsman in May 2011.