Acharon seeks leave of court to challenge evidence against him
Published Oct 6, 2018 04:40 pm
By Czarina Nicole OngÂ
South Cotabato Rep. Pedro Acharon Jr. has filed a motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence before the Sandiganbayan Seventh Division since he believes there is lack of evidence to prove his graft charge.
Pedro B. Acharon Jr (FACEBOOK/ MANILA BULLETIN)
Filing a demurrer to evidence is an act contesting that the evidence offered in the case is insufficient. If the court grants it, then the case would be dropped.
But if the motion for leave to file is denied, Acharon is still free to file his demurrer to evidence. However, filing a demurrer means he is waiving his right to present evidence.
He was earlier accused of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in connection with the anomalous cash advances amounting to P1,500,000 and P1,000,000 on May 25, 2006, which was reportedly for the "Pagana Dinner Show and Tambayayong Festival" in Los Angeles, California from June 9 to 16, 2006.
According to his rap sheet, Acharon knew fully well that the amount was intended for 37 individuals, but only 17 were able to participate. As a result, Acharon caused undue injury to the government in the said amount. He was still the mayor of General Santos City when that happened.
However, Acharon argued in his motion that the prosecution failed to "adduce any grain of evidence" to prove that he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence when he issued the two cash advances.
At the same time, he argued that there was no proof that the issuance of the checks to GSC Tourism Association Inc. was unlawful.
"Far from being unlawful, the issuance of the subject two checks and the corresponding disbursement vouchers was made pursuant to the promulgated Sangguniang Resolutions of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of General Santos City and duly approved Appropriation Ordinance," his motion read.
Acharon also said prosecution failed to prove that he acted in conspiracy with his co-accused in the issuance of the checks, since there was no "factual and physical evidence" that "asserted the element of conspiracy or confederation."
Lastly, Acharon argued that prosecution insufficiently proved that he failed to liquidate the money, since witness Herman B. Jumilla conceded there was partial liquidation in the amount of P600,000.
Pedro B. Acharon Jr (FACEBOOK/ MANILA BULLETIN)
Filing a demurrer to evidence is an act contesting that the evidence offered in the case is insufficient. If the court grants it, then the case would be dropped.
But if the motion for leave to file is denied, Acharon is still free to file his demurrer to evidence. However, filing a demurrer means he is waiving his right to present evidence.
He was earlier accused of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in connection with the anomalous cash advances amounting to P1,500,000 and P1,000,000 on May 25, 2006, which was reportedly for the "Pagana Dinner Show and Tambayayong Festival" in Los Angeles, California from June 9 to 16, 2006.
According to his rap sheet, Acharon knew fully well that the amount was intended for 37 individuals, but only 17 were able to participate. As a result, Acharon caused undue injury to the government in the said amount. He was still the mayor of General Santos City when that happened.
However, Acharon argued in his motion that the prosecution failed to "adduce any grain of evidence" to prove that he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence when he issued the two cash advances.
At the same time, he argued that there was no proof that the issuance of the checks to GSC Tourism Association Inc. was unlawful.
"Far from being unlawful, the issuance of the subject two checks and the corresponding disbursement vouchers was made pursuant to the promulgated Sangguniang Resolutions of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of General Santos City and duly approved Appropriation Ordinance," his motion read.
Acharon also said prosecution failed to prove that he acted in conspiracy with his co-accused in the issuance of the checks, since there was no "factual and physical evidence" that "asserted the element of conspiracy or confederation."
Lastly, Acharon argued that prosecution insufficiently proved that he failed to liquidate the money, since witness Herman B. Jumilla conceded there was partial liquidation in the amount of P600,000.