THE Sandiganbayan has thrown out the petition of a staff member of late Negros Oriental Rep. Herminio Teves to be allowed to appeal her conviction on graft and malversation charges despite her claim that her lawyer neglected his duty by failing to provide her legal assistance.
In its February 11, 2025 resolution, the anti-graft court’s Third Division denied the motion for reconsideration filed by defendant Hiram Diday Pulido in which she assailed the ruling that upheld the guilty verdict.
“The grounds for reconsideration proffered by Pulido cannot warrant a relaxation of the procedural rules. As stated in the assailed Resolution, Pulido is bound by the failure of Atty. Villamor to timely file the necessary pleading,” the court said.
Pulido was sentenced to six to ten years imprisonment for one count of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practice Act and 12 to 18 years for the malversation charge together with co-accused former Technology and Livelihood Resource Center (TLRC) deputy director general Dennis Cunanan, chief accountant Marivic Jover, legislative liaison officer Belina Concepcion and private defendant Samuel Bombeo, an officer of the Molugan Foundation Inc., a non-government organization (NGO).
They were found guilty of conspiracy to funnel P9.6 million from Teves’ PDAF allocations into the Molugan Foundation which was reportedly handpicked by the lawmaker as a project partner.
Prosecutors said out of the P10 million PDAF released to TLRC, P9.6 million was transferred to the Molugan Foundation despite the lack of public bidding, contrary to the provisions of RA 9184 or the Government Procurement Reform Act.
The P400,000 difference was retained by TLRC as a “service fee.”
Ostensibly, the money was intended for the distribution of agricultural implements and livelihood assistance to poor families in Teves’ legislative district.
After a special audit of the PDAF, state auditors issued a notice of disallowance, saying the transaction was “undertaken without due regard to existing laws and regulations.”
The Commission on Audit declared that the transfer of the PDAF sum to the Molugan Foundation was illegal and irregular since NGOs were not included among the listed implementing arms of PDAF projects according to the General Appropriations Act of 2007.
Prosecutors likewise established that the foundation was not accredited by the government and had no record of having undertaken any type of livelihood project.
In her motion, Pulido implored the court to grant her another chance to file an appeal after her counsel defaulted on the deadline in filing her motion assailing the conviction as well as the reglementary period for filing a Notice of Appeal.
She insisted on her innocence of the crime charged, denying any knowledge of the transaction with the Molugan Foundation or the PDAF-funded project. She told the court that her signatures on documents presented during the trial were all forgeries.
Pulido argued that the judicial system had previously allowed a relaxation of procedures for the sake of substantial justice since she was at risk of losing her liberty on wrongful allegations.
The prosecution, however, objected noting that the defendant failed to justify such liberality that she was asking the court.
“After a careful review, the court resolves to deny accused Pulido’s Motion for Reconsideration. This court finds that Pulido is also guilty of contributory negligence for losing her right to appeal. She did not exercise due diligence in monitoring the status of her cases,” the Sandiganbayan said.
It pointed out that the filing of the challenge to the conviction was late not just by days or weeks but by several months.
The court pointed out that the defendant did not have to appear in person to verify the status of her cases as there were other means of communication available to her.
“While there are instances when the court has relaxed the governing periods of appeal to serve substantial justice, this was done only in exceptional cases,” the court added.
