THE Sandiganbayan has denied the motion for reconsideration filed by former Quezon City councilor Dante de Guzman seeking the reversal of the anti-graft court’s April 30, 2024 decision that convicted him on four counts of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
In a resolution dated June 26, 2024 penned by Associate Justice Sarah Jane T. Fernandez, the Sixth Division affirmed its pronouncement that the accused was guilty of gross inexcusable negligence in relation to the failed distribution and loss of P6.41 million worth of supplies purchased using government funds in 2008 and 2009.
De Guzman was sentenced to six to eight years imprisonment for each count of graft or a total of 24 to 32 years. He was likewise ordered to pay the city government some P6.4 million subject to 6 percent yearly interest until fully paid.
Based on evidence presented during trial, De Guzman submitted purchase requests for custom-made tents worth P3.49 million, sports supplies worth P2.79 million, kiddie raincoats and rubber boots worth almost P1 million, and P352,986 worth of food supplies supposedly for distribution among residents of District 3.
State auditors said the items never arrived and were no longer located or accounted for.
While a distribution list was submitted to the audit team and the city government, the court said the lists “appear to have been prepared and falsified to conceal the non-distribution.”
In his appeal, De Guzman said testimonies of prosecution witnesses were “unreliable and speculative,” hence there was insufficient ground to hold him criminally and civilly liable. He also pointed out that an expert witness for the defense attested that the signatures on the questioned documents were not his.
The court, however, said the alleged forgery of De Guzman’s signatures was not proven. It said differences noted in the signatures on various documents did not amount to convincing proof that it was not De Guzman who affixed his signature.
“The mere fact that there are differences in the appearance and characteristics of the questioned signatures and standard signatures does not necessarily mean that the questioned signatures were forged,” the Sandiganbayan said.
At most, the court said De Guzman may have raised the possibility that another person signed the documents but he failed to show that such actions were done with intent to defraud.
“In fine, accused De Guzman failed to convince this Court that the reversal of the assailed decision is warranted,” the court said.
