Sandiganbayan acquits ex-Albay Gov. Grex Lagman in ‘jueteng’ payola case

MANILA — The Sandiganbayan Third Division acquitted former Albay Gov. Edcel Greco Lagman of indirect bribery and violation of the anti-illegal numbers games law.

The prosecution alleged Lagman received a payoff or payola from the operation of “jueteng,” an illegal numbers game, during his term as vice governor of the province.

In its decision promulgated on Friday, the court said the main witnesses who accused Lagman of receiving jueteng payolas later recanted their sworn statements and testified contrary to their original accounts.

The witnesses included Alwin Nimo, ex-Sangguniang Kabataan chair of Barangay Anislag, who alleged that Lagman received weekly payments of P60,000 in exchange for protecting jueteng operations in Albay.

The court said the witnesses’ original statements were admissible as independently relevant statements but could not be used to establish the truth of the allegations they contained.

It said the prosecution could not use the statements to provide context or corroborate the remaining evidence against Lagman, which included a Toyota Fortuner allegedly used to deliver jueteng payolas.

The prosecution also presented 60 bank deposit slips showing cash deposits in small denominations under Lagman’s name.

The court said these pieces of evidence, even when considered alongside Lagman’s position as vice governor, were insufficient to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

“[This leaves] the Court with no inference to be derived in determining whether Lagman is indeed guilty of the crimes charged,” the court said in a statement. 

Third Division Chairperson Associate Justice Karl Miranda agreed with Lagman’s acquittal on the charge of acting as a protector or coddler of jueteng but disagreed with the majority’s ruling on indirect bribery.

He said that graft and corruption are inherently covert offenses, which make direct evidence difficult to obtain, and that circumstantial evidence should be treated as evidence in its own right.

Miranda agreed with the majority that the witnesses’ recantations did not automatically invalidate their original sworn statements.

He also found the defense’s explanation that the cash deposits were repayments of a personal loan from Nimo, to Lagman “incredible.”

The justice noted that Lagman did not mention the alleged loan in his counter-affidavit before the Office of the Ombudsman. The explanation surfaced only after the witnesses recanted their statements, he said.

Miranda noted that the supposed loan had no interest or collateral despite its substantial amount and was not reflected in Lagman’s Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth.

The justice said the totality of the evidence supported the conclusion that the P60,000 weekly payments were protection money rather than loan repayments.

Miranda cited the regularity of the payments over three years and their denominations, which consisted of thousands of P20, P50 and P100 bills. He said these were consistent with collections from numerous jueteng bettors.

He clarified that a conviction for indirect bribery does not require proof that the money received by a public official came directly from jueteng operations or that the official personally participated in the illegal numbers game. Rather, the offense hinged on a public officer’s acceptance of gifts by reason of his office.

However, Miranda agreed that the prosecution failed to establish Lagman’s guilt as a protector or coddler under Republic Act No. 9287, which penalizes illegal numbers games.

He said the offense requires proof of an actual illegal numbers game operation, which the prosecution failed to establish through the cash receipts and bank deposits presented in court.

Miranda also urged the Ombudsman to probe the circumstances regarding the witnesses’ original sworn statements and recantations, including possible falsification or the use of intimidation or other improper means.

He said the anti-graft body should pursue appropriate action for possible perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code, if warranted.