Cebu City RTC Branch 74 Presiding Judge Marlon Jay Moneva denied the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration, affirming the May 15 dismissal of terrorism financing charges against 27 Cernet members.
The court originally dismissed the case on May 15, citing a lack of statutory publication requirements and ruling that the charged acts did not constitute a crime at the time of commission.
Defense lawyers welcomed the July 10, 2026, order, stating the court correctly identified that the alleged offense lacked a legal basis under Republic Act 10168 at the time of the incident.
THE Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 74 in Cebu City has affirmed its earlier decision dismissing terrorism financing charges against the Cebu-based Community Empowerment Resource Network Inc. (Cernet).
RTC Branch 74 Presiding Judge Marlon Jay Moneva, in an order dated July 10, 2026, denied the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration, affirming the court’s May 15 dismissal of the criminal case.
The prosecution had sought to overturn the earlier order granting the accused’s joint motion to dismiss. The case involved 27 former and current members of Cernet.
Basis for dismissal
In the May 15 order, RTC Branch 74 Pairing Judge Van Russel Inopiquez dismissed the case “on the ground for lack of statutory publication requirement and that the acts charged do not constitute a crime under the law in force at the time of their commission.”
The court ruled that the alleged acts did not constitute a crime under the law at the time they were allegedly committed.
Two judges have now upheld the dismissal. Judge Inopiquez issued the original order while Judge Moneva was on study leave. After returning, Moneva denied the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration and allowed the dismissal to stand.
In an interview with SunStar Cebu on Wednesday, July 15, defense lawyer Ian Manticajon welcomed the latest ruling.
“We were very confident with our case,” he said.
He said the defense was pleased that the court acted promptly on its motion to dismiss and on the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration.
Court rejects reconsideration
In the July 10 order, Moneva addressed the defense’s joint motion to strike, which argued that the prosecution improperly served its motion for reconsideration through electronic means.
The court declared the motion to strike moot after finding that the prosecution received a hard copy of the May 15 dismissal order on June 4, giving it until June 9 to file its motion for reconsideration.
Moneva ruled that the prosecution failed to present new legal precedents or supervening facts that would justify reversing the dismissal.
Defense cites missing legal basis
The charge alleged a violation of Section 8(ii), in relation to Section 9, of Republic Act 10168, or the Terrorism Financing Prevention and Suppression Act.
Defense lawyer Kristian Jacob Lora said the court based its ruling on the essential elements of the offense rather than on procedural issues.
“The crime that is being charged does not exist in the first place,” Lora said.
He said the absence of the required statutory publication meant the alleged offense had no legal basis. / CDF