THE Sandiganbayan has affirmed its February 6, 2025 decision convicting former Department of Environment and Natural Resources – Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (DENR-ARMM) regional secretary Sultan Usman Tantao Sarangani of 16 counts of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019).
In its resolution issued last March 19, the anti-graft court’s Sixth Division denied the defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration seeking the reversal of the ruling on the ground that the court erred in evaluating the prosecution’s evidence against him.
Sarangani was sentenced to six to seven years imprisonment per count or a total of 96 to 112 years with perpetual disqualification from holding public office.
The case filed by the Office of the Ombudsman in 2023 alleged that Sarangani conspired with co-accused former ARMM regional accountant Nanayaon Dibaratun in the anomalous award of contracts totaling P3.51 million to two suppliers, both of which were allegedly owned by the latter.
Dibaratun died during the pendency of the case, resulting in the dismissal of cases against her and leaving Sarangani the only defendant left.
In the assailed decision, the court held that evidence on record showed that only Iftizah Ayezah Enterprises and Ashley Ventures, the two suppliers identified with Dibaratun, received the invitations to bid while the third bidder, Crisma General Merchant, either did not exist or was excluded on purpose when the invitations were sent out.
In his MR, Sarangani challenged the basis for his conviction, saying the cases should have been thrown out since the documentary exhibits marked by the prosecution were mere photocopies while the testimonies were merely hearsay and devoid of personal knowledge by the witnesses called during the trial.
In sweeping aside the appeal, the Sandiganbayan noted that the documents being objected to were authenticated as duplicates of the original and the defendant failed to block them during trial on various challenges.
“Accused Sarangani failed to cast doubt on the authenticity of the originals of the said documents. Neither did he show that it is unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicates of the said documents in lieu of the originals,” the Sandiganbayan said.
Likewise, the accused objected to the admission of documents bearing his signature claiming these were forgeries.
The court pointed out that under the rules, the burden of proving a forgery rests with the alleging party.
Although the defendant presented a document examiner from the National Bureau of Investigations (NBI) to testify in support of his assertion, the court noted that the expert’s submission did not support Sarangani’s claim.
“In fact, witness Magcuro testified that he did not compare the specimen signatures submitted to him with the signatures in the questioned documents because the questioned documents were mere photocopies. In fine, accused Sarangani failed to convince this Court that the reversal of the assailed Decision is warranted.,” the court declared.
