THE Sandiganbayan denied a motion from former Misamis Oriental vice governor Jose Mari Pelaez asking for leave to seek outright dismissal of three counts of graft filed against him in 2023 over alleged irregularities in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan payroll when he was its presiding officer.
Associate Justice Sarah Jane T. Fernandez, who chairs the Sixth Division, penned the resolution dated March 21, 2025 that denied the defendant’s Motion for Leave of Court to File Demurrer to Evidence for lack of merit. Associate Justices Kevin Narce B. Vivero and Lord A. Villanueva concurred.
Pelaez was accused of putting three casual hires of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan Antonio Rodriguez, Ricky Pagaran, and Lowell Zarate to work in his private properties in Gingoog City and Cagayan de Oro City even if they drew their pay from the provincial government coffers from 2013 to 2015.
In his motion, Pelaez said he should not have been indicted at all since the affidavits of the three casual workers on which the cases were based were riddled with irregularities.
He also pointed out that not once was he the subject of an adverse finding from the Commission on Audit during the relevant period.
Prosecutors countered that the defendant had stipulated on documents obtained from the offices of the provincial treasurer and the provincial accountant about the employment of Rodriguez, Pagaran, and Zarate and who paid their salaries.
The three also testified that they worked in Pelaez’s private properties, the days and time they rendered services, their duties, and the instructions they received from the former vice governor and his trusted staff.
The prosecution added that the absence of an adverse finding from COA was irrelevant in the pending cases since state auditors were not privy to the private arrangements between Pelaez and the three workers.
After weighing the parties’ positions, the Sandiganbayan denied Pelaez’s motion, noting that the Supreme Court gave trial courts discretion to grant or deny leave to file a demurrer to evidence.
“After examining the prosecution’s evidence and the parties’ arguments, the Court rules that granting accused Pelaez leave to file his demurrer to evidence will merely cause a delay in the proceedings,” the court declared.
The defendant was reminded that he may still file his demurrer to evidence albeit without leave of court, with the attendant risk that he will be deemed to have waived his right to present evidence if the demurrer is denied.
Should he decide to present evidence instead, he was told to inform the Court and the prosecution beforehand regarding the order of the presentation of his witnesses whose judicial affidavits he had already submitted.
