Bacolod Mayor Monico Puentevella yesterday said he has not yet decided whether to travel abroad or not, so the arraignment set by the Sandiganbayan in the case filed against him involving the purchase of overpriced Information Technology package is not going to happen.

This was after the Court resolved to grant his “Motion for Leave of Court to Travel Abroad” dated March 11, subject to several conditions, among them that he will allow himself to be conditionally arraigned on March 25.

Puentevella said the arraignment will only be held if one decides to travel.

The Sandiganbayan Fourth Division had issued a hold departure order last month against Puentevella and two others, while the case against them involving the anomalous procurement of overpriced computer packages worth more than P25 million, using his Priority Development Assistance Fund when he was yet a congressman is pending.

Puentevella was also required by the Sandiganbayan to deposit with the Court P90,000 in cash as travel bond to guarantee faithful compliance with the terms and conditions imposed on him, based on the resolution signed by Justices Gregory Ong, Jose Hernandez and Maria Cristina Cornejo.

The Court said he will issue a separate final resolution authorizing Puentevella’s travel after he has complied with the requirements which are to allowing himself to be conditionally arraigned on March 25, and by depositing the travel bond.

Puentevella said he has not decided whether to travel or not since he has work to do and will have many important trips to make later on as representative of the Philippines.

“There is no such thing as arraignment as my friends think. It is not going to happen” Puentevella said. “I have been performing my job well, do you think I will leave the country?” He asked.

FILED MOTION

He did not explain, however, why he had filed a “Motion to Leave Court to Travel Abroad” on March 11.

Puentevella also said that according to the Department of Interior and Local Government and the Sandiganbayan, there is no problem if he decides to travel abroad as long as he represents the country.

The case against Puentevella at the Sandiganbayan involves the alleged anomalous procurement of overpriced computer packages from Merryland Publishing Corporation at P400,000 each without the conduct of public bidding and using the Priority Development Assistance Fund of Puentevella when he was yet a congressman.

The Office of the Ombudsman had ordered the filing of information before the Sandiganbayan against Puentevella, Victorino Tirol, Jr. of the Department of Education, and supplier Jessie Garcia, after finding probable cause to indict them for acting in violation of R.A. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

The Court, in acting on his Motion to Leave, however, required Puentevella to leave the Philippines not earlier than March 30 and return not later than April 2, and that his itinerary of travel should cover only Singapore, and not any other place.

It also required Puentevella to personally present himself to the Division Clerk of Court together with his passport and photocopies of the relevant pages indicating the stamps of his departure from and entry into the Philippines, within five days after his return. This should be authenticated by the Division Clerk of Court.

If, for whatever reason, Puentevella fails to take the trip abroad, he must, within five days from the expected date of return, personally present himself to the Division Clerk of Court, together with photocopies of pages of his passport which must not bear any stamp of departure from or entry into the Philippines during the relevant period.

VIOLATION WARNINGS

Should he fail to return to the Philippines as promised, notice to him of subsequent proceedings will be made through his counsel of record, Redemtor Peig, at his given address on record.

The Court also required Puentevella to file his written compliance not later than 10 days from April 2, his expected date of return.

“Any material misrepresentation made in the accused’s Motion for Leave to Travel Abroad shall be punished as contempt of this Court and shall be dealt with accordingly,” it said.

Any violation of the terms and conditions in this resolution will be sufficient ground for the Court to order the forfeiture of travel bond, as well as to cause the issuance of a warrant of arrest, it also said.*CGS

back to top