THE Sandiganbayan has thrown out bids by a former mayor of Sta. Barbara, Iloilo and private contractors to seek outright dismissal of criminal charges filed against them in connection with the alleged rigged bidding of infrastructure projects awarded in 2006.
In a nine-page resolution dated February 6, 2024, the anti-graft court’s Seventh Division denied three separate motions filed by the defense asking for leave to file demurrers to evidence.
The Sandiganbayan held that former Mayor Isabelo Maquino, Municipal Bids and Awards Committee members Lyndofer Beup, Noel Jaspe, and Negenia Araneta, and private defendants Raymund Tabuga of Topmost Development and Marketing Corp (TMDC) and Felix Gurrea of F. Gurrea Construction Inc. (FGCI) must present their evidence to refute the allegations in the indictment.
The local government officials were accused of conspiracy with the two private contractors to favor TDMC and FGCI by ensuring that they end up with the public works contracts.
Based on the information filed by the Office of the Ombudsman in 2017, FGCI was awarded two contracts while TDMC won three contracts. Graft investigators said the two were “sister companies.”
The projects were identified as the concreting of the Libertad and Arroyo Streets, concreting of Sodusta Street, and construction of a fish section building which all went to TDMC; and the asphalt overlaying of Castilla Street and asphalting of the section of Arroyo Street in front of the public market, both won by FGCI.
The former municipal officials and the two contractors said the prosecution’s evidence was insufficient to prove the key allegations in the complaint.
Attached with the motions were the defendants’ Demurrer to Evidence.
The prosecution opposed the motions, noting that each one was defective for failure to comply with the requirement that specific grounds should be stated rather than general statements.
It noted that the evidence clearly showed that the withdrawal by TDMC of its bid in two projects resulted in automatic award of the contract to FGCI. The latter then made a similar gesture, withdrawing from three project bidding which led to TDMC winning the contracts.
The Sandiganbayan sustained the prosecution’s stand that a motion for leave to file demurrer must state a specific ground.
“Contrary thereto, accused herein palpably failed to specify the grounds for their respective motions for leave to file demurrer to evidence. The accused invariably only made general assertions in their motions to the effect that the prosecution still failed to prove the allegations in the informations,” the court pointed out.
Although the accused mentioned that the grounds are fleshed out in their Demurrer to Evidence attached to their motions, the court held that this failed to cure the defect.
“Leave has not yet been granted to file the demurrers. Hence, the court is not bound to consider the contents of the attached demurrers in the resolution of the present motions. The accused’s failure to specify the grounds in the motion for leave to file demurrer makes it impossible to ascertain whether it is merely filed to stall proceedings,” the Sandiganbayan ruled.
