A lot of us may be in shock: Why would some high officials of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) be granted state witness benefits?
By accepting Usec. Roberto Bernardo, District Engineer Henry Alcantara, and Gerard Opulencia into the Witness Protection Program, the government concedes that their testimonies are crucial to supporting the cases filed against the “big fish,” a major public call in the flood control corruption controversy.
This action raises some issues, such as: are they the least guilty of those who participated in the plunder and malversation charges, which prohibit bail and carry long-term imprisonment? Are government officials who stole hundreds of millions of pesos from government coffers the least guilty of the crimes?
By granting officials who admitted participating in stealing hundreds of million, maybe billions from public funds and giving them freedom from prosecution, the national government shows its extreme difficulty in securing other witnesses, even though many other DPWH personnel participated in the crimes.
It is strange why low level employees are not recruited as state witnesses when we see that for each case so far submitted to the Sandiganbayan, there are about eight DPWH personnel accused of the crime.
This action of giving the three officials and a contractor sends a clear signal to the other officials and contractors that there is a way to escape lifetime imprisonment by doing two things. Tell all of what you know and return the loot, or at least most of it, since the government does not exactly know how much was stolen. Since this is not known with certainty, the state witness can retain a large portion of the stolen funds. This is a flaw in the current process.
It looks like the acceptance of the four as state witnesses is part of a process in which models of approaches are being tested, especially the return of the funds stolen, called, in legal terms, restitution.
My guess is the big fish will be charged before the Sandiganbayan, using the testimonies of state witnesses as major evidence. This could be the saving grace of the approach.
We can say the three DPWH officials who were admitted to the Witness Protection Program followed a strategy that left the national government with no other option but to accept them, despite the loopholes I mentioned earlier.
The justice system requires substantial evidence to prosecute. This later becomes a requirement for proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as it is needed for conviction in a criminal case.
As I mentioned in this column last week, a case that builds up and results in a complaint with a reasonable chance of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt can delay the filing of cases.
There may be other officials involved, but the prosecutors believe the statements of the three officials will suffice. (The fourth one is a contractor.)
If this works, other officials could follow, and there will be many state witnesses for the hundreds of cases that need to be filed.
At this stage, having a sample or test case is, I believe, the only option to satisfy public demand and to allay criticism that this process is a hoax designed to deceive the public into believing something substantial is happening, but in the end, will be mainly futile efforts.
The strategy of using state witnesses is being put to the test here. It could succeed in convicting the big fish, but it could also lead to a prolonged process that results in the dismissal of the cases.
#WeTakeAStand #OpinYon #OpinYonNews #IAmBack