Reviewing the Controversial Case of the Late Antonio L. Sanchez

I could remember the controversial Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) controversy. The late Antonio L. Sanchez was supposedly qualified but that was later denied by former president Rodrigo R. Duterte. Right now, it creates a case of curiosity if Antonio is truly innocent or guilty. Some criminals can lie to the public about their non-involvement such as what the late Leo Echegaray did. However, others were wrongfully accused like Hubert Jeffry P. Webb and Francisco Juan "Paco" G. Larrañaga. In the case of Hubert and Paco, there were witnesses to back it up that they couldn't have done the crime.

Criminal investigations can get really messy. As mentioned earlier, Hubert and Paco were both innocent. There are cases where a crime happens and the wrong people are caught. There are cases where a crime happens and the right people are caught. In the case of the late Eileen Sarmenta, her parents immediately recognized the body. Antonio alleged that Kit Alqueza, the former boyfriend of Eileen, was the one who supposedly did the crime. At that time, Antonio was said to be planning to run for governor and was rivals with the Alquezas. 

As I watched the documentary, Antonio still insists that he couldn't have done the crime. However, unlike Paco and Hubert, there don't seem to be any witnesses backing what he said up. Paco had more than 30 witnesses, photos, etc. to prove that he was in Manila. Hubert had documents that proved he was in the USA when the Vizconde Massacre happened. There was the alibi that Antonio was supposedly with his paramour named Elvira. I wonder where were the others who could testify that Antonio was with Elvira Jimenez (and they had a daughter, Marie Tonee Jimenez Sanchez) at that time in Bay, Laguna? Where are the records to prove it? 

This detail from the Supreme Court E-Library may prove that the alibis done in favor of Antonio, were rehearsed:

To recall, all the appellants relied on the defense of denial/alibi, i.e., they were at their respective homes on the night of the rape-slay.  But Centeno and Malabanan confirmed the presence of all the appellants on the night of June 28, 1993 till the early morning of the following day and detailed the exact participation of each in the crime.  Positive identification by credible witnesses of the accused as the perpetrators of the crime, as we have consistently held, demolishes the alibi[11] - the much abused sanctuary of felons.[12] Moreover, except for the Mayor who presented Ave Marie Tonee Jimenez Sanchez (his daughter with his mistress Elvira) and Medialdea who presented his neighbor Anastacia Gulay, the other appellants failed to present corroborating testimonial evidence to butress their respective alibis.  The defense of alibi is inherently weak especially when wanting in material corroboration.  Categorical declarations of witnesses for the prosecution of the details of the crime are more credible than the uncorroborated alibi interposed by the accused.[13] Ave Marie’s testimony is of no help to the Mayor, since alibi becomes less plausible as a defense when it is invoked and sought to be crafted mainly by the accused himself and his immediate relatives.[14] Anastacia Gulay’s testimony is likewise worthless since the trial court found her testimony rehearsed.  We will not disturb this finding because it touches on credibility.

Unlike the Chiong 7 suspects who were simply your regular delinquents--Antonio had power at that time. The Chiong 7's first two suspects had several people outside their clan to prove their innocence. Paco had his school instructors, the photos (which the late Judge Martin Ocampo et al alleged was possibly tampered with), Cebu City Vice Mayor Raymond Alvin N. Garcia even presented negatives in court, and several witnesses from Manila. Friends aren't immediate relatives. Also, the trial court found that Anastacia Gulay's testimony was rehearsed. Not to mention, Antonio also had lots of unexplained wealth--which could make cover-ups even easier than what the Larrañagas and Aznars would've have had.

Just reading this from the Philippine Star should make anyone question the claims of Antonio as "wrongly accused": 

Copies of the titles of 19 parcels of land owned by Sanchez and his wife Editha, now registered under the name of the state, were received by the Office of the Ombudsman last March 1, the agency announced yesterday. 

In a decision in July 2016, the Sandiganbayan ordered the forfeiture of Sanchez’s properties, including a residential building, two Mercedez Benzes, a 1991 Dodge Caravan, shares in a lending business as well as cash and bank accounts.

Sanchez and his wife declared an income of P855,073.88 based on their joint tax returns from 1986 to 1992.

Sanchez had a salary of P17,724 per month when he was mayor in 1980 and 1981, P26,388 from 1981 to 1986, and P10,443 from 1988 when Calauan was downgraded to a fifth class municipality. 

The Sandiganbayan said the tax declaration and income of the couple were “grossly disproportionate” to their lavish lifestyle.

Graft probers said the couple sent their three children to Hurtwood House, an exclusive school in London with a tuition of P1 million each; had frequent trips to the United States, Italy, United Kingdom, Germany, Japan and Hong Kong; hosted a lavish birthday party for 550 guests at Manila Hotel, and owned several properties, including luxury vehicles.

“Respondents’ assets and expenses were grossly and manifestly disproportionate to their legitimate income… These assets and the funds used for the disproportionate expenses were unlawfully acquired… and subject to forfeiture,” the Sandiganbayan ruling read.

Later on, it was revealed that while in prison, Antonio also had misbehavior involving drugs inside Bilibid. Later on, the same person had a lot of contraband to answer for in 2015. This was different from what Paco and his co-accused were in Bilibid. Paco wasn't getting any special treatment whether he was in Bagong Buhay Rehabilitation Center (BBRC) or when he was transferred to New Bilibid Prison. Paco had proof of his innocence documented. At this point, I doubt that Antonio had any photos or records to prove he was with his mistress in Bay, Laguna. 

Unfortunately, there are times when the guilty get punished along with the innocent. I believe that Antonio is guilty as much as I believe Hubert and Paco are innocent. With how Antonio was, it can be safe to assume that his trial wasn't haphazard unlike what happened to Hubert and Paco.