The Sandiganbayan has ruled that three former officials of the Philippine Postal Corporation (PPC) have to present their evidence on the criminal cases filed against them.
(MANILA BULLETIN)
In a resolution, the anti-graft court junked the motion to reconsider the denial of the plea to file demurrer to evidence lodged by former postmaster general Hector Ronald R. Villanueva, chief executive staff Juliana C. Dimalanta, and assistant executive secretary Antonio F. Corrado.
They were charged with graft and violation of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees in connection with what the prosecution alleged as illegal appointment of Corrado from 2007 to 2010 as PPC consultant.
The prosecution claimed that Corrado held simultaneously the positions of legal and management consultant to the PPC and assistant executive secretary in the Office of the President.
It also alleged that Corrado received PPC allowances, reimbursements for hotel and restaurant expenses, and salaries amounting to P1.05 million.
On Oct. 9, 2020, they submitted a pleading asking permission to file a demurrer to evidence for the dismissal of their cases on the ground that the prosecution’s evidence was weak to sustain a conviction.
On Nov. 10, 2020, the anti-graft court denied their motion with a ruling that it was filed belatedly. Thereafter, they filed a motion for reconsideration.
In a resolution written by Associate Justice Alex L. Quiroz, the Sandiganbayan said the motion of the accused for permission to file a demurrer to evidence should have been done within five days after the prosecution has terminated the presentation of its evidence.
Thus, the court said the motion should have been filed on or before March 7, 2020.
But since the accused only filed their motion on Oct. 9, 2020, the Sandiganbayan said it was filed beyond the period provided under the rules of court.
"Had the defense counsel orally manifested on even date (after the prosecution’s termination of evidence presentation) their desire to file a demurrer to evidence, the Court would have resolved the same in that very instance," the court said.
“However, there is nowhere in the records to show that the defense counsel manifested that he would be filing a demurrer to evidence. He cannot therefore be heard to argue that the Court's omission prejudiced him when the records show he was given every opportunity to move for leave of court to file demurrer but he failed to do so," it added.