Sandiganbayan dismisses petition for new trial filed by 3 TUP execs


Sandiganbayan

The Sandiganbayan has junked the petition for new trial filed by Technological University of the Philippines (TUP) bids and awards committee (BAC) members Dr. Vicky R. Galiza, Dr. Melito A. Baccay, and Arch. Roberto O. Panganoron on their graft charges for which they had been convicted by the Manila regional trial court (RTC).

They had been found guilty of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, in a decision handed down on Nov. 9, 2020 by Presiding Judge Hon. Bibiano Colasito of Manila, RTC Branch 50.

The RTC ruled that they failed to verify with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) the company registration of Erectors 2000 during post-qualification.

They then asked the RTC for a retrial of their case based on newly discovered evidence. Their plea was denied on Feb. 2, 2021. They elevated the issue before the Sandiganbayan.

In their plea for re-trial, they accused the RTC judge of acting with grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess jurisdiction, when they were denied to reopen the trial under Section 24, Rule 119, 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

They told the anti-graft court that had their documentary and testimonial evidence been presented, there could have been a strong possibility they would be exonerated of the offense charged.

But the Sandiganbayan said their plea “appears to be an afterthought conceptualized by petitioners' counsel."

"After a careful study of the record, the Court rules that the denial by respondent Judge of petitioners' motion to reopen trial for presentation of additional evidence or new trial is well-reasoned out in the order dated Feb. 2, 2021," the Sandiganbayan’s decision stated.

"There is no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. There is no indication whatsoever that the denial of the motion was done in a capricious or whimsical exercise of discretion," it added.

The 10-page decision dated Feb. 10, 2022 was written by Associate Justice Oscar C. Herrera Jr. with the concurrence of Associate Justices Michael Frederick L. Musngi and Bayani H. Jacinto.