DOJ to look into other anomalies in Bilibid

Manila, Philippines - The Department of Justice (DOJ) will pursue further investigation into anomalies in the national penitentiary to determine who else were accorded VIP treatment apart from former Batangas governor and convicted killer Jose Antonio Leviste.

Justice Secretary Leila de Lima has ordered her undersecretary Francisco Baraan III, who supervises the Bureau of Corrections (BuCor), to proceed with the probe initially focused on Leviste’s unauthorized “vacation” from the New Bilibid Prison (NBP) last May 18.

De Lima said she would also create next week a multi-agency technical working group that would review and study rules and regulations in BuCor and NBP.

“I am deeply committed to reform the BuCor – especially now that several issues on food budget, bidding and escape of inmates like that of Frank Chua have come out in the open,” she stressed.

In a press conference, Baraan said De Lima specifically wanted to know if there were other anomalies in BuCor apart from the caper of Leviste and other high-profile inmates.

He revealed that the investigation on similar privileges purportedly accorded to Rolito Go, a businessman convicted of murdering a college student over a traffic altercation in 1991, has already started.

“We will look into possible escapes that took place in the past prior to that of Leviste,” Baraan said, but expressed reservation over a congressional proposal to privatize NBP.

“I don’t think the problems that we see now will be eradicated with the privatization of our prison system. Maybe what we need is a complete overhaul – including the culture of treating prisoners,” he stressed.

Baraan revealed that the DOJ is also considering pushing for the creation of a bigger penitentiary outside Muntinlupa City and one prison per region in the country.

He said the five current and previous officers of the national penitentiary who were all recommended by the investigating DOJ panel for administrative actions would be preventively suspended for 90 days. He said the formal complaints against them were already being prepared.

The five prison officers found liable for Leviste’s caper by the DOJ panel were: former NBP chief superintendent Armando Miranda and his successor, Ramon Reyes, who assumed leadership of the NBP last April; Dante Cruz and Roberto Rabo, former and incumbent heads of the minimum security compound; and Prison Guard I Fortunato Justo, Leviste’s custodian.

Former BuCor director Ernesto Diokno was also found liable for neglect of duty, but was spared of administrative charges following his resignation last Monday.

However, Diokno is facing separate criminal and administrative complaints for allegedly violating the rights of at least 2,000 detainees to exercise freedom of religion.

Consolidated sworn affidavits have been filed against him before the Office of the Ombudsman alleging how prison guards were directed “not to allow the minister of the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC)” to enter the premises of the maximum and medium security compound of the NBP on separate occasions last month.

NBP chaplain Father Robert Olaguer and Superintendent Richard Schwarzkopf were also named respondents in the case.

Lawyer Restituto Lazaro, representing the inmates, said a memorandum order was allegedly issued on the visiting day and visiting hours of religious workers.

According to the complaint, the INC minister assigned to officiate worship activities at the NBP was prevented from entering the facility for the 9 a.m. and 12:45 p.m. church services on May 1, 5, and 8.

Lazaro said Diokno, Olaguer, and Schwarzkopf’s actions constitute violations of sections 3(e) and 3(f) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Section 3(e) of the law criminalizes acts of “causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.”

Section 3(f), on the other hand, penalizes acts of “neglecting or refusing, after due demand or request, without sufficient justification, to act within a reasonable time on any matter pending before him for the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly, from any person interested in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or advantage, or for the purpose of favoring his own interest or giving undue advantage in favor of or discriminating against any other interested party.”

Lazaro said the respondents may have also violated Civil Service Commission (CSC) rules that would amount to gross neglect of duty, abuse of authority, unfair discrimination in rendering public service due to party’s affiliation of preference, and conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service. – With Michael Punongbayan