Lawmaker to Sandigan: Deny testimonies of 4 witnesses in graft case

Surigao del Norte Rep. Francisco Matugas has asked the Sandiganbayan’s First Division to deny a request by government prosecutors to take the oral deposition of four witnesses in a graft case against him and 10 others.

Matugas invoked the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which prohibit the taking of deposition of possible witnesses previously allowed in the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Two of Matugas’ co-accused, former provincial administrator Carlos Egay and businessman Ernesto Bravo of Martin Pharmaceutical Laboratory Inc., also joined the lawmaker’s motion.

Matugas was accused of conspiring with four medical suppliers, his niece – who acted as representative of the medical suppliers – and six other former provincial officials in the alleged overpricing of pharmaceutical products and other hospital items that were used in the provincial government’s medical and dental outreach programs between October 1996 and February 1998.

Government auditors found that among the items purchased were 5,000 cc water used for dextrose at P109 per bottle but which was available from other suppliers at only P26 per bottle; butterfly needles bought at P68 per unit but could be purchased at only P9.95 per unit; and amoxicillin antibiotics paid for at P73.83 per capsule but sold by other companies at only P10 each.

Aside from Egay and Bravo, the other accused are provincial accountant Daisy Andit, budget officer Virginia Yuipco, services officer Zenn Eupeña, assistant administrator Sally Plaza, and treasurer Antioco Bonono.

Besides Bravo, the other private accused are private contractors Jesse Peñaranda, owner of Colt Marketing; Vivian Ortiz, president and general manager of Medicine Trading Inc.; Francisco Reyes, president and general manager of Beruth Medical Center Inc.; and Joemel Tinio Yu, Matugas’ niece who allegedly acted as a representative of the five suppliers.

The Sandiganbayan’s First Division, in March 2006, denied Matugas’ motion seeking the dismissal of the graft case.

In a four-page resolution promulgated on March 16, 2006, the anti-graft court said Matugas’ arguments concerned evidentiary matters best ventilated in a trial.

Prosecutor Julieta Zinnia Niduaza named lawyer Rene Medina, provincial board member Victor Bernal, former vice governor Rodolfo Navarro and businesswoman Mary Ann Yparraguirre as possible witnesses against Matugas and his co-accused.

However, Niduaza said the four could not personally appear in court due to “distance and financial constraints” because they lived in Surigao del Norte.

The defense lawyers argued that the revised rules of court only allow “conditional examination” of potential witnesses but only under specific circumstances like serious sickness or infirmity, or if they are leaving the country with no definite date of return.

“The motion to take the oral deposition may not be legally granted as the same is no longer allowed by the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure,” Matugas and Egay argued in their joint motion.

Bravo supported their stand, saying, “There is no procedural ground available to grant prosecution’s motion for oral depositions of its witnesses or even their conditional examinations. For sure… distance and financial constraints are not valid reasons since the Republic of the Philippines is assumed to have the facilities for making (its witnesses) available during scheduled hearings.”

In an earlier motion, Matugas said he should be dropped from the graft case, claiming that he had no role in the bidding and awarding of the contracts.

He claimed that his political rivals exerted pressure and wielded their influence in filing the graft case against him.