The Sandiganbayan Third Division acquitted former Albay Vice Governor Edcel Greco “Grex” Lagman over indirect bribery and a case concerning ₱8.5 million in “jueteng” protection money after a trial that lasted over two years.
According to a document released by the anti-graft court, the witnesses, Alwin Nimo, Dexter Maceda, and Jeffrey Manganilao, who submitted sworn statements implicating Lagman as jueteng protector or coddler before the Office of the Ombudsman retracted their earlier testimony.
Not all magistrates who heard the case were convinced Lagman was innocent, however, reported RH 5 Val Gonzales.
Associate Justice Karl B. Miranda asserted that the money received by former vice governor Lagman was clearly not a debt pay-off but protection money, and so he should have been declared guilty of indirect bribery.
The revised statement claiming the weekly ₱60,000 jueteng payolas Lagman received as repayments for a supposed personal loan was “incredible and contrary to common experience,” Miranda said, particularly as Lagman had not raised the purported loan in his counter-affidavit.
“The loan repayment theory figured only after the witnesses recanted their testimonies. For Justice Miranda, Lagman’s failure to invoke this supposed evidence, which goes at the heart of the accusation against him, at the earliest opportunity is difficult to reconcile with ordinary human experience,” the Sandiganbayan wrote.
Miranda added that while the recantations were considered, the witnesses’ original sworn statements remained admissible as “independently relevant statements” to be taken into account alongside other evidence on record.
“The recantations by themselves neither extinguished the prosecution’s prima facie case nor rendered the original sworn statements devoid of evidentiary value,” the court said.
In Indirect Bribery, evidence does not necessarily point to money received for jueteng operations specifically, or that the public official was directly involved in the illegal numbers game.
“The essence of Indirect Bribery is the acceptance of gifts by reason of his public office,” Miranda argued.
However, Miranda agreed with Lagman’s acquittal on the charge of violation Section 3(g) of Republic Act No. 9287, in relation to Section 2(k), as the offense requires proof of an actual illegal numbers game operation, which the prosecution was unable to sufficiently establish.
He called on the Office of the Ombudsman to consider examining the circumstances surrounding the witnesses’ initial statements and subsequent recantations—to look into whether the statements were falsified or made through “intimidation, inducement, or other improper means,” which may require appropriate action for possibly perjury charges.
