THE Sixth Division of the Sandiganbayan declared that government prosecutors have presented sufficient evidence to prove the graft case against former Zamboanga Deputy City Prosecutor Roselyn Murillo-Mamon and private lawyer Pherham Saiddi.
In a three-page resolution penned by Associate Justice Karl B. Miranda, the anti-graft court junked the defendants’ motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence seeking outright dismissal of the graft case for alleged lack of evidence to support the allegations.
“After a thorough review of the records of the case and the evidence submitted by the Prosecution, the Court finds that, unrebutted, the same is sufficient to support a verdict of guilt,” the Sandiganbayan said.
The case, filed in 2017, stemmed from the complaint of Police Staff Sgt. Flavio Enriquez Jr. who accused Mamon and Saiddi of offering to pay him P200,000 to lie in his testimony in a frustrated murder trial before the Zamboanga City Regional Trial Court, Branch 14.
The police officer said he was asked not to implicate the two clients of Saiddi who are co-accused in the frustrated murder case. Mamon is the handling prosecutor.
Enriquez, with help of the National Bureau of Investigation, set up an entrapment operation resulting in the arrest of Mamon and Saiddi in August 2013. They were caught red-handed in the act of delivering a brown envelope containing P200,000 to the police officer.
In his motion, Saiddi claimed the evidence of the prosecution fell short of the required proof to support the elements of the graft charge. He said there was no direct evidence that he was the counsel of the two accused in the frustrated murder case, that he offered bribe money to the witness, or that he conspired with Mamon.
Mamon, in a manifestation, adopted Saiddi’s motion.
The anti-graft court ruled in favor of the prosecution’s stand that the totality of the documentary and testimonial evidence adduced during trial are sufficient to sustain the indictment of both accused.
Mamon and Saiddi have previously tried to get the case dismissed through a motion to quash but this was denied by the court in a resolution dated October 30, 2017.