The Sandiganbayan has ruled that despite his acquittal on graft, malversation and bribery charges, former Ilocos Sur congressman Salacnib F. Baterina is still required to return, together with those convicted, the P35 million illegally disbursed out of his Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF).

In a resolution promulgated last Jan. 9, the anti-graft court's Special Second Division ruled that “Baterina's acquittal does not prevent a judgment from still being rendered against him on the civil aspect of the criminal cases.”

With the ruling, the court denied “for lack of merit” Baterina’s Nov. 13, 2023 motion for partial reconsideration of the Oct. 27, 2023 decision of the tribunal that acquitted him but ordered him, together with those convicted, to indemnify the government and return to the national treasury, jointly and severally, P35 million, which represents the amount wrongfully and illegally disbursed.

Among those convicted was businesswoman Janet Lim Napoles who had been convicted in five other cases before the Sandiganbayan.

The charges against Baterina and his co-accused involved the release of PDAF, through the Technology and Livelihood Resource Center (TLRC), to the Napoles-controlled non-government organizations (NGOs) Philippine Social Development Foundation, Inc. (PSDFI) and Kaagapay Magpakailanman Foundation, Inc. (KMFI) for the implementation of government projects which turned out to be non-existent. 

In its Oct. 27, 2023 decision, the anti-graft court said “it was established that accused Baterina’s signatures in the documents that would have shown that he misused to pre-select and endorse KMFI (Kaagapay Magpakailanman Foundation Inc.) and PSDFI (Philippine Social Development Foundation Inc.) to implement his projects were forged.”

In his motion for partial reconsideration, Baterina asked the court "to absolve him of civil liability because he allegedly did not even know of his PDAF allocations.”

In denying the motion, the Sandiganbayan said: “Not only was accused-movant aware of his PDAF allocations; he also knowingly caused the same funds to be released and even identified the project and implementing agency. The Court’s finding of forgery does not include accused-movant’s letters requesting for the release of his PDAF and designating Technology and Livelihood and Resource Center (TLRC) as the implementing agency. In fact, the signatures in these letter requests are substantially the same with accused-movant’s known signatures as well as his signatures in the records of these cases."