THE Sandiganbayan Sixth Division has thrown out a motion filed by a resigned staff member of former Agriculture secretary Proceso Alcala asking all three members of the court to inhibit themselves from hearing his appeal to his graft conviction last year.
In resolution issued on January 4, the anti-graft court held that the ground cited by accused Laureano Arnulfo Mañalac in his motion is both baseless and irrational.
The appellant said he fears his chance at winning a reversal of his conviction is doomed by the “passionate questioning” by Associate Justice Karl B. Miranda.
Mañalac was found guilty of one count of graft on Aug. 23, 2023 and sentenced to six to 10 years imprisonment with perpetual disqualification from public office. He was likewise ordered to pay the DA P13.5 million subject to 6 percent yearly interest from the finality of the decision until the sum is paid in full.
Alcala was named principal accused in the case but was acquitted for insufficiency of evidence to satisfy the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
On the other hand, the court declared that all the elements of graft were sufficiently proven as against Mañalac due to his involvement in processing the application of Isa Akong Magsasaka Foundation Inc (IAMFI), the non-government organization that received P13.5 million in agriculture fund.
The Sixth Division noted that on the trial records of four other criminal cases pending with the Seventh Division, Mañalac admitted in court that he, his wife, daughter, and mother-in-law were incorporators of IAMFI.
Likewise, there were official receipts issued by IAMFI showing that he was an authorized signatory of the private foundation for the disbursement of funds received from the DA.
Based on these links, the court held that IAMFI should have been disqualified from the outset from any transaction with the department.
In denying the motion to inhibit, the court noted that Mañalac failed to allege any valid or compelling reason that would merit the inhibition of Justice Miranda and the other members of the Sixth Division.
“The court finds the motion for inhibition completely bereft of merit. It is clear that the motion for inhibition of the 6th Division is simply a desperate and unwarranted attempt to prevent this Court from ruling on the case,” the court said.
