FORMER Oriental Mindoro congressman and governor Rodolfo Valencia has failed in his bid to block prosecution evidence in his graft and malversation cases before the Sandiganbayan after the anti-graft court denied his motion for reconsideration.
In its resolution dated February 13, 2023, the Seventh Division declared that the prosecution’s Exhibits “J series” pertaining to the employment documents of the former lawmaker’s son, Nico Valencia, as his chief of staff are admissible as evidence.
Valencia is facing three counts each of graft and malversation of public funds in relation to allegations that he conspired with officials of the Technology Resource Center (TRC) and the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) in the fraudulent transfer of P7 million from his Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or pork barrel allocations to a bogus private foundation linked to his co-accused Janet Napoles.
In his motion, the former legislator argued that the documents pertaining to the younger Valencia are both irrelevant and immaterial to the offense alleged.
He pointed out that, at best, the contested documents would only tend to prove the employment record of Nico Valencia and his personal circumstances but would have no bearing whatsoever on any of the key elements of the charges.
The defendant noted that there was never a mention of “Nico Valencia” during preliminary investigation but only one Celia Cuasay who was supposed to have acted on his behalf.
He said it was only when prosecutors failed to establish a link between him and Cuasay that his son’s name surfaced.
By introducing the said name, he contends that the prosecution has already changed its theory which has the effect of depriving him of his constitutional right to be informed of the charges against him.
The prosecution countered that there was no change in theory and that the documents pertaining to Nico Valencia is relevant because he signed several documents that have bearing on the pending cases.
In denying the appeal, the Sandiganbayan reminded Valencia that the only issue regarding the challenged documents concerns admissibility and not probative value.
Likewise, with the testimony of Civil Service director Dick Echavez that the challenged records are public documents, the court said they have been admitted into the case records.
In addition, the Sandiganbayan noted that Valencia did not raise any objections on the presentation of the prosecution evidence last July 26, 2002 since his counsel was absent despite having been notified of the hearing date.
