MANILA — The Department of Justice on Thursday said two former Bulacan district engineers linked to the alleged flood control project anomalies are not yet disqualified from becoming state witnesses, stressing that their applications remain under review pending the submission of additional evidence.
DOJ spokesperson Polo Martinez said former Bulacan 1st District assistant engineers Brice Hernandez and Jaypee Mendoza failed to initially meet the requirements for state witness status based on the materials they submitted, but were given the chance to supplement their applications.
“They did not yet qualify based on what was submitted,” Martinez said during a news forum, adding that Hernandez and Mendoza “may still submit [evidence]… and that applies to anyone who is an applicant [as state witness].”
Martinez explained that the screening process is meant to fortify the government’s case against those deemed most responsible for the alleged irregularities in flood control projects.
“The purpose of this assessment is for the Department to be able to acquire evidence it needs for the successful prosecution of those liable,” he said.
Earlier this week, the DOJ approved the admission of four individuals into its Witness Protection Program (WPP) in connection with the same controversy. These include former Department of Public Works and Highways undersecretary Roberto Bernardo, ex-Bulacan District Engineer Henry Alcantara, Gerard Opulencia, and contractor Sally Santos.
Justice Acting Secretary Fredderick Vida confirmed that the four were formally accepted as state witnesses, citing the relevance of their testimonies to the prosecution’s case.
Martinez noted, however, that the WPP panel has yet to determine whether the statements of Hernandez and Mendoza are usable at this stage of the proceedings, even as the DOJ signaled openness to further disclosures.
“The Justice Department welcomes any statement that would help it in its prosecution of the crimes,” Martinez said.
Under Rule 119 of the Rules of Court, an accused may be discharged as a state witness only if their testimony is indispensable, corroborated on material points, and if the accused is not the most culpable or previously convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude./PN
