THE Sandiganbayan has thrown out a motion for reconsideration filed by the father and son defendants in graft and malversation cases involving the alleged fraudulent release of P81 million Tobacco Excise Tax shares in 2016.
In a resolution penned by Associate Justice Edgardo M. Caldona, the Second Division held that filing a motion for reconsideration was not the proper legal remedy after it denied requests for leave to file demurrers to evidence filed by defendants former Narvacan, Ilocos Sur municipal mayors Edgardo and Zuriel Zaragoza.
Associate Justices Oscar C. Herrera Jr. and Arthur O. Malabaguio concurred.
The cases, filed in 2022, were based on a complaint lodged by former Ilocos Sur Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson accusing the Zaragozas of conspiracy with former municipal accountant Melody Cadacio and Education Research assistant Mario Cabinte in defrauding Narvacan farmers of P81 million intended as agricultural assistance.
Invoking Title III (13) (d) of the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases, the court said the Narvacan officials only have two options left: start presenting their evidence or file a demurrer to evidence without leave of court.
The second option is considered a risky move because it is deemed a waiver of the right to present evidence and if the demurrer is denied, the cases would be decided based only on evidence on record.
“At the onset, it should be stressed that when an accused’s motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence is denied, the proper remedy is not a motion for reconsideration but to proceed to trial by presenting his/her evidence,” the anti-graft court said.
Prosecutors have opposed the defense move as a mere dilatory tactic that should be immediately denied. It invoked the Supreme Court’s pronouncements in the 2021 case of Jalandoni vs. Office of the Ombudsman that the denial of a demurrer to evidence “is not reviewable by certiorari.
“The evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to sustain the indictment. The instant cases should not be dismissed at this time but instead, be allowed to proceed to trial. Verily, it is not the burden of the accused-movants to present evidence in their defense,” the anti-graft court said.