FOR the second time in as many months, the Sandiganbayan has denied a bid by former municipal officials of Narvacan, Ilocos Sur for early termination of corruption cases against them based on complaints filed by former Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson.
The anti-graft court’s Second Division, in a resolution dated January 18, 2024, denied the Motion for Reconsideration of former Narvacan municipal accountant Melody Cadacio and Education Research assistant Mario Cabinte which appealed the denial of their previous motion asking the court for leave to file Demurrer to Evidence.
Both movants were named co-accused of former National Tobacco Administration (NTA) chief Edgardo Zaragoza and his son, former Narvacan municipal mayor Zuriel Zaragoza, in graft and malversation charges for allegedly defrauding the municipal farmers of P81 million from the tobacco excise tax funds collected under RA 7171.
Prosecutors said state witness Constante Cabitac, the erstwhile president of the Federation of Farmers of Narvacan, encashed Landbank checks totaling P81 million in 2016 issued in his name and delivered the money on board an armored vehicle to the residence of the younger Zaragoza.
He said in all these transactions, he was accompanied by Cabinte and Cadacio who even rode with him in the armored car.
In their motion, Cabinte and Cadacio argued that the evidence presented by the prosecution did not prove all the elements of the offense as charged as well as the existence of conspiracy among them and the rest of the accused.
In its opposition, the prosecution pointed out that the motion failed to raise any new issue and was a mere rehash of old arguments previously weighed and considered by the court.
Rejecting the defense arguments, the Sandiganbayan held that the motion did not comply with the requirement to state the specific grounds as to why the prosecution’s evidence is insufficient to support a conviction against them.
“While the rules do not require that accused-movants explain at length their arguments in the motion for leave, it requires them to specifically state the grounds relied upon. Hence, a general claim that the prosecution was not able to establish the elements of the offense and the fact of conspiracy will not suffice,” it clarified.
