THE Sandiganbayan admitted all the evidence that former Quezon City councilor Dante de Guzman presented in connection with the 32 criminal charges pending against him.
In a resolution dated April 2, 2025, the anti-graft court’s fifth division ruled to admit all exhibits marked by De Guzman in his defense, sweeping aside objections raised by government prosecutors.
De Guzman is facing 16 counts of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act docketed as Case Nos. SB-22-CRM-0006 to 0021 and 16 counts of malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents recorded as Case Nos. SB-22-CRM-0022 to 0037.
Based on the indictments issued by the Office of the Ombudsman in 2022, prosecutors said the former city councilor is criminally liable for his alleged involvement in the hiring of ghost employees, including job order (JOs), contract of service (COS), and general payroll personnel.
They said he had “primary and direct involvement in the recruitment and appointment of employees within his jurisdiction,” contrary to his denial.
The Sandiganbayan, however, said the objections raised by prosecutors challenged the probative value of the evidence presented rather than their admissibility.
“Admissibility of evidence should not be confused with its probative value. Admissibility refers to the question of whether certain pieces of evidence are considered at all, while probative value refers to the question of whether the admitted evidence proves an issue,” the court pointed out.
The defendant had previously tried to seek outright dismissal of the cases.
In a motion filed on May 6, 2024, de Guzman sought leave of court to file a demurrer to evidence, saying the testimony of private complainant Glenda Cercado and other prosecution witnesses fell short of establishing proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
He also insisted that it was the City Legislative Branch, not he, that exercised the authority of hiring job order and contractual employees.
The Sandiganbayan, however, denied his motion as it held that the prosecution’s presentation was sufficient “to shift the burden of evidence to the accused.”
It added that unless De Guzman can present enough proof of his innocence or at least “cast a shadow of doubt on his guilt,” the evidence as it stands unrebutted, may be sufficient to support a finding of guilt against him.
