Sandiganbayan bars Senator Marcoleta, 3 others from leaving PH
By Jel Santos
Published May 26, 2026 05:04 pm
(PHOTO: SENATE PRIB)
The Sandiganbayan’s Seventh Division on Tuesday afternoon, May 26, issued a precautionary hold departure order (PHDO) against Senator Rodante Marcoleta, former lawmaker Michael “Mike” Defensor, Aristotle Baluyut Viray, and Joseph Varias Espiritu.
A PHDO is a court order that prohibits a respondent facing a criminal complaint under investigation by the Department of Justice (DOJ) or the OMB from leaving the Philippines pending resolution of the investigation.
Earlier in the day, the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) argued before the anti-graft court that the four respondents should be barred from leaving the country pending proceedings involving plunder and related complaints, citing alleged concealment, financial capacity, and influence.
During the hearing on the OMB’s application for the PHDO, Office of the Ombudsman Luzon Field Investigation Bureau (FIB) Director Maria Melinda Mananghaya-Henson, who stood as the prosecution’s witness, testified on the basis for the anti-graft body’s request.
“Our basis for saying he’s a flight risk is that respondent possesses the sufficient influence as a senator. The respondent also has economic resources to do so,” Mananghaya-Henson told the court.
“The respondent actually has the tendency to conceal and evade liability as in fact in his statements of expenses and statements of assets and liabilities, he did not declare the 75 million,” she added.
The PHDO application stemmed from complaints involving allegations of plunder, indirect bribery, and violation of Presidential Decree No. 46, which prohibits public officials from receiving gifts and private individuals from giving them.
Complaint triggered probe
According to Mananghaya-Henson, the investigation was triggered by a complaint filed by Danilo Arao and received by the OMB in December 2025.
She said the OMB proceeded with its own probe despite the Commission on Elections’ (Comelec’s) finding that no election offense had been committed, stressing that the poll body’s proceedings involved a different subject matter.
The witness said the OMB’s investigation focused on determining possible criminal liabilities.
P75-million donation
Mananghaya-Henson told the anti-graft court that investigators found basis to allege that Marcoleta received P75 million from three individuals while he was still a sitting lawmaker. The alleged gifts or donations were reportedly made in January 2025.
According to her, the alleged P75-million amount was “manifestly excessive,” noting that a sitting congressman earning around P299,000 monthly at the time would supposedly need about 20 years to earn such a sum.
She said public officials are required to declare such amounts in their Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN), adding that even if the funds had already been spent or converted into other assets, these should still have been reflected in the SALN.
Likewise, she argued that the alleged concealment before the Comelec and in SALN submissions indicated a supposed intention to evade liability.
“Our basis is that in the proceedings before the Commission on Election (Comelec) and in submitting his SALN, he actually concealed,” Mananghaya-Henson said.
“And the concealment itself is an indication for us that respondent will be evading liability,” she added.
Alleged conspirators
Mananghaya-Henson also said that the fact-finding investigation had already been completed and endorsed for preliminary investigation proceedings.
She likewise explained why the alleged donors were included as respondents in the complaint.
“We included the donors because we consider these three are actually conspirators of Marcoleta,” she said.
“First, they have the financial capacity, having been able to give out millions of pesos to Marcoleta,” she added.
The witness further alleged that the donors belatedly filed donor’s tax returns.
“Also, we consider them as conspirators in the concealment of the crime which was committed because these three private individuals belatedly filed the donor’s tax return in order to conceal the illegality of the gifts given if they know that the donor’s tax returns is actually filed almost one year after the donations were given,” Mananghaya-Henson said.
“And therefore, it was not in compliance with the law already,” she added.
During the hearing, Mananghaya-Henson also said the OMB had subpoenaed Marcoleta’s travel records but had yet to receive a response.
She added that the OMB’s recommendation was to file plunder charges against the respondents.
Plunder complaint
Earlier, investigators from the OMB filed a complaint for plunder against Marcoleta, Defensor, Joseph Varias Espiritu, and Aristotle Baluyut Viray.
In an order dated May 21, 2026, the Ombudsman directed the respondents to submit their counter-affidavits within 15 days from receipt of the order.
According to the complaint filed on May 18, investigators alleged that Marcoleta’s acceptance of gifts totaling P75 million on three separate occasions while he was still serving as a member of the House of Representatives constituted plunder.
The complaint alleged that Marcoleta received P30 million from Defensor on Jan. 6, 2025; P25 million from Espiritu on Jan. 8, 2025; and P20 million from Viray on Jan. 9, 2025.
Investigators said the transactions were allegedly supported by donor’s tax returns and deposit slips reflecting payment of donor’s taxes in December 2025.
Donor’s tax issue
Also, the investigators alleged that there was no clear purpose or pending transaction that would justify the transfer of the funds and argued that the gifts were given by reason of Marcoleta’s public office.
The complaint also alleged that Defensor, Espiritu, and Viray “belatedly filed the donor’s taxes for the gifts,” adding that the payments were supposedly made only later to invoke good faith and make it appear that the gifts were legally accepted.
Investigators pointed out that under the National Internal Revenue Code, donor’s tax returns must be filed within 30 days from the date the gift was made.
However, they alleged that the donor’s taxes for the gifts given in January 2025 were paid only in December 2025, or nearly 12 months later.