THE Sandiganbayan has rejected an attempt by Lapu-Lapu City Mayor Paz Radaza to have the graft charges against her dismissed even before the trial ends.
The Sandiganbayan’s 6th Division denied the motion for reconsideration Radaza had filed, relative to the anti-graft court’s denial of her motion for leave to file a demurrer to evidence.
Filing a demurrer is one move the defense can take if it believes the prosecution’s evidence is insufficient.
Background
“After a careful restudy of the testimonial and documentary evidence presented by the prosecution, this court still finds that the same, if unrebutted, is sufficient to convict the accused,” read the Sandiganbayan ruling.
SunStar Cebu tried but failed to reach Radaza for her comment. Calls and text messages seeking her comment were unanswered as of press time Friday.
Radaza and six others are facing charges before the Sandiganbayan for their alleged involvement in the misuse of P15 million in pork barrel funds of former Cebu congresswoman Clavel Asas-Martinez in 2002.
The cases stemmed from the alleged misappropriation of P15 million from the Priority Development Assistance Fund of Martinez, who represented the fourth district from 1998 to 2007.
Radaza was then treasurer of the Girl Scouts of the Philippines (GSP) Cebu Council when the alleged fund misappropriation was carried out.
Co-respondents
Clavel, then president of GSP Cebu Council, allocated P15 million for the anti-drug campaign of the GSP, but the use of the amount was not reflected in the GSP’s financial and audit report.
Clavel’s co-respondents are her son, former Bogo City mayor and now Provincial Board Member Celestino “Tining” Martinez III, and her daughter, Bogo City Vice Mayor Ma. Cielo A. Martinez.
The other respondents are municipal treasurer Rhett Minguez, municipal accountant Cresencio Verdida, former bookkeeper Rhodariza Kilantang, and former GSP Cebu Council cashier Julieta Quino.
They were charged with two counts of malversation of public funds (Article 217, Revised Penal Code) and two counts of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
In her motion, Radaza argued the prosecution failed to prove she had committed any crime.
On the other hand, the prosecution insisted that Radaza’s motion was a mere rehash of her previous arguments and that the pleading was filed out of time.
In the resolution, the Sandiganbayan denied Radaza’s motion for being filed out of time and for lack of merit. The anti-graft court gave Radaza 10 days from receipt of the notice to file a demurrer to evidence without leave of court.