By Czarina Nicole Ong-Ki  The Sandiganbayan Third Division has maintained its decision refusing to allow an ocular inspection to settle an issue in the graft and malversation case of former Cabugao Mayor Diocaesar Suero in connection with the alleged overpayment of a farm-to-market road project for the municipality back in 2010. Sandiganbayan (MANILA BULLETIN FILE PHOTO) Suero and his co-accused has pleaded with the court to let them conduct an ocular inspection to determine whether the said project undertaken by the municipality had been "underrun." In his motion for reconsideration, Suero said that an ocular inspection is the exercise of an accused's constitutional right to secure the production of evidence in his behalf. He asserted that the volume and dimension of the roads could be physically inspected and measured to determine whether there had been an "underrun" even before the Commission on Audit's (COA) Notice of Allowance. He insisted that the ocular inspection would not delay the proceedings, and it would even avoid injustice. But after due consideration, the anti-graft court decided to deny his MR. The court said it would be "highly impractical" to conduct the ocular inspection now, given the considerable length of time that had lapsed from the time N.A. Ibarra Construction constructed the component parts of the farm-to-market road. "We additionally point out that an ocular inspection would not necessarily provide enlightenment to the Court at this stage of the proceedings as regards the alleged 'underrun,' since this process would not prove the dates when the component parts have been constructed in relation to the time they were alleged to have been inspected by Engr. Blanco," the resolution read. Regardless of its denial of his MR, the anti-graft court assured him that it will evaluate the probative value of all pieces of evidence presented, including the Inspection Report that will be cross-checked to the dates of inspection by Engr. Pedro Blanco from the COA, which became the basis of the alleged "underrun." "The Court, too, will carefully look into whether the farm-to-market road had really been completed at the time Ibarra was paid on May 5, 2010," the resolution read. "Even without an ocular inspection, the Court could determine from the testimonial and documentary evidence whether the component parts fully satisfied the required volume of the project." The four-page resolution was written by Associate Justice Ronald Moreno with the concurrence of Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang and Associate Justice Bernelito Fernandez. Suero was charged alongside Nesto Ibarra for giving preference to the latter's company - N.A. Ibarra Construction - in the construction of the farm-to-market road project for the municipality. Suero reportedly released the amount of P516,715.14 to Ibarra even though the project was deemed incomplete by the COA, therefore "resulting in overpayment in the aforesaid amount, in violation of pertinent laws, government auditing and accounting rules and regulations," the charge sheet against them read. As for the malversation charge, Suero and Ibarra were accused together with Jose Suboc, municipal engineer, and Florante Jara, municipal planning and development coordinator. The four of them reportedly conspired with one another in falsifying the Certificate of Work Accomplished, Certificate of Services Rendered, and Certificate of Project Completion in connection with the road project. As a result, they disbursed a total of P926,650.66 and made it appear as if the project was 100 percent completed even though it wasn't.