THE Sandiganbayan has denied a bid by former Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM)-Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Regional Secretary Sultan Usman Tantao Sarangani to seek the outright dismissal of 32 criminal charges filed against him in 2023 by the Office of the Ombudsman.
The anti-graft court’s Sixth Division held that the defendant’s Motion for Leave of Court to File Demurrer to Evidence was devoid of merit.
“After examining the prosecution’s evidence and the arguments accused Sarangani raised in his Motion, the Court rules that granting accused Sarangani leave to file his demurrer to evidence will merely delay the proceedings,” the Sandiganbayan said.
Sarangani is facing 16 counts each of violation of Section 3 (e) and (h) of RA 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act over alleged irregularities in procurement contracts totaling P3.51 million in conspiracy with the late ARMM Regional Accountant Nanayaon Dibaratun.
Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 alleges that the accused caused undue injury to the government by favoring a certain supplier while Section 3 (h) of the same law penalizes a public officer for having direct or indirect financial interest in any business or contract in which he intervenes because of his office.
Based on the resolution dated June 4, 2018, the Ombudsman found probable cause to indict Sarangani and Dibaratun but the latter passed away before the corresponding information was filed in court on January 3, 2023.
Prosecutors filed the charges based on a report submitted by a team of auditors led by State Auditor Mayaman Saga which found that the DENR-ARMM purchased supplies from suppliers/companies owned by Dibaratun.
Sarangani was accused of having a pecuniary interest in Dibaratun’s businesses and of actively participating in the transactions as evidenced by his involvement in 16 disbursement vouchers marked as part of the government’s evidence.
In his motion, Sarangani contended that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to support the allegations against him.
The prosecution, however, pointed out that the accused had already challenged the validity of the charges through a petition for review filed with the Supreme Court which was denied in a resolution issued on July 31, 2023.
