Sandigan affirms ex-Czech envoy’s MRT testimony via teleconference

MANILA, Philippines — The Sandiganbayan has affirmed its ruling allowing former Czech ambassador Josef Rychtar to testify through video conferencing on the graft cases against former Metro Rail Transit (MRT) Line 3 general manager Al Vitangcol III in connection with the alleged $30-million extortion try on Czech company Inekon Group in 2012.

In a resolution promulgated on Aug. 16, the anti-graft court’s Sixth Division has denied Vitangcol’s motion for reconsideration seeking the reversal of its July 3 ruling allowing Rychtar and Inekon Group board chairman and chief executive officer Jose Husek to testify through “real time” video conferencing on his cases.

Vitangcol and his co-accused Wilson de Vera, one of the directors of MRT maintenance provider PH Trams, are facing before the Sixth Division two counts each of violation of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Filed by the ombudsman in 2016, the cases stemmed from Vitangcol and De Vera’s alleged attempt to extort from Inekon officials some $30 million, which was later reduced to $2.5 million, in exchange for awarding to the company the contract for the supply of train coaches as part of the P3.8-billion MRT expansion project under the previous administration.

The respondents also allegedly insisted that officials of Inekon enter into a joint venture agreement with De Vera’s group under a 60-40 percentage sharing (in favor of Inekon), in exchange for awarding to the company the contract for the maintenance of MRT-3.

The extortion try which allegedly happened on July 9 to 10, 2012 was exposed by then Czech ambassador Rychtar. The incident supposedly took place in Rychtar’s house in Forbes Park, Makati City.

The contract for the supply of coaches was eventually awarded to CNR Dalian Locomotive and Rolling Stock Co. of China while the maintenance contract was awarded to PH Trams after officials of Inekon supposedly refused to pay the amount allegedly being extorted by Vitangcol and De Vera.

The Sixth Division said Vitangcol filed his motion for reconsideration (MR) 13 days after receiving a copy of the July 3 ruling, in violation of the five-day rule under the Supreme Court’s “Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases.”

Furthermore, the court said the MR must also be denied for lack of merit.

The court maintained that the prosecution was able to sufficiently show that Rychtar and Husek could not come to the country to testify for valid reasons. 

In its July 3 ruling, the Sixth Division gave weight to the prosecution’s printed confidential correspondences via electronic mail (e-mail) with Rychtar’s and Husek’s lawyer Vit Makarius.

The court said the printouts of the e-mail correspondences show that there are “private” reasons why Rychtar and Husek could not come to the Philippines, but their testimonies must still be heard nonetheless.

The court, in its new ruling, also dismissed Vitangcol’s argument that allowing the testimony through video conferencing would deprive him of his constitutional right to confront the witness face-to-face.

The Sixth Division pointed out that Section 10 of Rules on Electronic Evidence (REE) provides exception to the general rules that examination of witnesses must be done orally before a judge. 

“The places where the witnesses will give their respective testimonies will be considered as extensions of the courtroom during the proceedings. The accused should be able to cross-examine the witnesses, and at the same time, allow the Court to observe the deportment of such witnesses,” the Sixth Division’s new ruling read.

The court stressed that the testimonies of Rychtar and Husek through video conferencing will only be allowed after the parameters that it has set in its July 3 ruling have been met.

“Moreover, if the presentation of the prosecution’s witnesses via video conferencing proceeds, the Court may discontinue the video conferencing at any time if it becomes apparent that the accused’ rights will be violated,” the Sixth Division added.

The court had earlier set Rychtar’s and Husek’s online testimonies on Aug. 31 and Sept. 7, respectively.

In its July 3 ruling, the Sixth Division said Rychtar shall give his testimony at the Philippine embassy in Santiago, Chile while Husek’s at the Philippine embassy in Prague, Czech Republic. The court said the prosecution must shoulder all the cost for the video conferencing including the necessary equipment and their installation.

The Sixth Division said at least three cameras must be installed at the places of the testimonies in order for the court and all parties to clearly see each other and understand the persons who are speaking as well as to view and examine the relevant documents.

The court also reminded the prosecution that the internet connection must be suitable for video conferencing “without disconnection, lags or other such interruptions.”