Court flags jail warden’s inconsistent testimony, says broken CCTVs can’t confirm Romualdez stayed in detention

Bureau of Jail Management and Penology screenshot MANILA — The Sandiganbayan Third Division said that the absence of functioning CCTV cameras near former House Speaker Martin Romualdez’s detention cell makes his whereabouts inside the Quezon City Jail unverifiable through surveillance footage.

In an order issued Tuesday, the anti-graft court said its ocular inspection of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) facility revealed that only 220 of its 450 installed CCTV cameras were operational.

It said that in the section housing Romualdez and other high-profile detainees, only 28 of 152 cameras were working. None of the operational cameras covered the area where Romualdez’s cell was located.

“The resulting blind spots constitute a serious deficiency in the facility’s security and monitoring arrangements,” the court said.

The inspection followed columnist Ramon Tulfo’s now-retracted claim that Romualdez was allowed to leave the facility. Although Tulfo has since recanted the claim, the court said the post called into question the BJMP’s custody over the former lawmaker.

The court clarified that its findings do not establish that Romualdez had actually left the jail without authorization.

“It merely recognizes that the existing monitoring arrangements are insufficient to conclusively establish his continuous presence within the detention premises,” the court said.

It noted Jail Superintendent Maria Lourdes Pacion’s admission that the CCTV cameras were installed in 2020 but had not undergone maintenance checks.

Pacion earlier said she had requested repairs from the BJMP as early as last year, but the request remained pending.

The court directed BJMP Chief Jail Director Efren Nemeño to submit within 10 days a report detailing the condition of the CCTV system, previous repair requests, actions taken and funding needed to restore and improve the surveillance system.

It also ordered the BJMP national headquarters to implement interim security measures pending the repair or replacement of the nonfunctioning cameras.

The court likewise questioned inconsistencies in Pacion’s statements about the presence of Romualdez’s personal aide inside the jail.

During the Nov. 5 hearing, Pacion confirmed that a member of Romualdez’s personal staff had been staying inside the facility since the former lawmaker’s admission on Sept. 14.

Asked if the aide was allowed to stay inside the jail, Pacion initially answered in the affirmative. 

She explained that she approved the arrangement because Romualdez needed assistance with his daily needs, citing her assessment that his mental state was not yet stable.

Pacion acknowledged that allowing the aide to stay inside was not explicitly provided for under BJMP rules, but invoked humanitarian considerations and her prerogative as warden.

“Actually, it’s a human consideration. We allow that if the patient is not in good condition, because we cannot attend all the personal needs of the patient, Your Honor,” she told the court.

However, during the Nov. 9 hearing, Pacion said the aide was only on call 24/7 and physically present inside the facility from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., during visiting hours.

The court said her latest explanation was difficult to reconcile with her earlier categorical admission that the aide had been staying inside the jail.

It also noted CCTV snapshots submitted by Pacion showed a civilian accompanying Romualdez on Oct. 19, Oct. 26 and Nov. 2, all Mondays, despite her statement that visits were not allowed on Mondays.

The Sandiganbayan referred the matter to the BJMP national headquarters for evaluation and appropriate action, including a possible referral to the Office of the Ombudsman for investigation.

It directed the BJMP to examine the circumstances of the aide’s admission, the authority under which he was allowed access, the duration and conditions of his stay, and his compliance with regulations.

The BJMP must submit a report on the results of its evaluation and actions taken within 30 days, the court said. 

“The custody of PDLs carries with it the responsibility to ensure their security, maintain accurate records of their whereabouts, and enforce detention regulations faithfully and without distinction,” the court said.

“Public confidence in the administration of justice requires that the detention of every accused, regardless of position, influence, or circumstance, be governed by the same standards of security, accountability, and equal treatment under the law.”