“THE Court finds, and so rules that if unrebutted, the evidence submitted by the prosecution is prima facie sufficient to support a verdict of guilt against accused.”
With this pronouncement, the Sandiganbayan Sixth Division denied the motion for reconsideration of former Nueva Ecija Rep. Rodolfo Antonino reiterating his challenge to the sufficiency of government evidence in the pending multiple graft and malversation charges against him.
The June 11, 2021 ruling shut down the former lawmaker’s bid for the outright dismissal of the charges involving alleged misuse of P14.55 million sourced from his Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or pork barrel allocations in 2007.
Aside from Antonino, also named co-defendants were former National Agribusiness Corp (Nabcor) president Alan Javellana, vice president Rhodora Mendoza, human resource supervisor Encarnita Cristina Monsod, and private persons Marilou Antonio and Carmelita Barredo, representing Buhay Mo Mahal Ko Foundation Inc. (BMMKFI) and CC Barredo Enterprises, respectively.
Prosecutors said the money went to a bogus procurement of 7,275 livelihood technology kits supposedly for distribution among residents of Antonino’s legislative district.
The first tranche of P13.095 million was released on March 19, 2007, followed by P1.455 million on April 24, 2007.
In his appeal, Antonino claimed that taken together, the government’s evidence against him did not establish a prima facie case, much less proof beyond reasonable doubt.
He added that there was a dearth of proof that he participated in the release and transfer of his PDAF allotment, hence he could not have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.
Moreover, he argued that the supposed conspiracy between him and the other defendants remain unsupported.
The prosecution countered that the points raised by the defendant were a rehash of the same issues previously included in his original Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence which has been denied in the assailed resolution.
The Sandiganbayan upheld the prosecution’s stand saying the arguments raised by Antonino are matters of evidence best threshed out in a full trial.
“There being no new issues or matters of substance presented that would warrant a reversal or modification thereof, the Court finds no cogent reason to reconsider its previous action on the matter,” the court declared.
