Sandiganbayan denies Alcala's motion
Published Jan 7, 2020 12:00 am
By Czarina Nicole Ong Ki
The Sandiganbayan Sixth Division has denied the motion for reconsideration filed by former agriculture secretary Proceso Alcala, seeking to exclude the evidence of the prosecution in his graft case.
Sandiganbayan (MANILA BULLETIN)
The anti-graft court said in its resolution that Alcala's objection over the prosecution's exhibits was nothing but a "mere reiteration and rehash of his objections" in his Objections and Comments to Plaintiff's Formal Offer of Evidence, which has already been considered and denied in a resolution penned on October 25, 2019.
In denying his MR, the Sandiganbayan cited a ruling from the Supreme Court's decision in the Notarte v. Notarte case, which held that in case of doubt as to the relevance, competence or admissibility of exhibits, it would be safer to be liberal and admit the same.
"Although this Court admitted the prosecution's exhibits into evidence, it has yet to determine the probative value of the same. If the aforementioned exhibits later turn out to be incompetent, this Court will disregard the same in resolving the present case," the resolution stated.
The resolution was signed by Sixth Division Chairperson Sarah Jane Fernandez and Associate Justices Karl Miranda and Kevin Narce Vivero.
Alcala of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for accrediting Isa Akong Magsasaka Foundation Inc. (IAMFI) on September 27, 2012 as a development partner of the DA.
He is facing the charge alongside his former head executive assistant Laureano Arnulfo Mañalac and Bautista H. Ella, IAMFI president.
The accused submitted an unauthorized Articles of Incporporation and concealed the fact that Mañalac was actually an incorporator of the foundation, which is in violation of the Commission on Audit (COA) Circular No. 2007-001.
After the foundation was accredited, they even entered into a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with it and released the amount of P13.5 million to the foundation.
They were faulted for failing to investigate the grant of public funds to the foundation since it was not entitled to it, therefore causing damage and prejudice to the government.
Sandiganbayan (MANILA BULLETIN)
The anti-graft court said in its resolution that Alcala's objection over the prosecution's exhibits was nothing but a "mere reiteration and rehash of his objections" in his Objections and Comments to Plaintiff's Formal Offer of Evidence, which has already been considered and denied in a resolution penned on October 25, 2019.
In denying his MR, the Sandiganbayan cited a ruling from the Supreme Court's decision in the Notarte v. Notarte case, which held that in case of doubt as to the relevance, competence or admissibility of exhibits, it would be safer to be liberal and admit the same.
"Although this Court admitted the prosecution's exhibits into evidence, it has yet to determine the probative value of the same. If the aforementioned exhibits later turn out to be incompetent, this Court will disregard the same in resolving the present case," the resolution stated.
The resolution was signed by Sixth Division Chairperson Sarah Jane Fernandez and Associate Justices Karl Miranda and Kevin Narce Vivero.
Alcala of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for accrediting Isa Akong Magsasaka Foundation Inc. (IAMFI) on September 27, 2012 as a development partner of the DA.
He is facing the charge alongside his former head executive assistant Laureano Arnulfo Mañalac and Bautista H. Ella, IAMFI president.
The accused submitted an unauthorized Articles of Incporporation and concealed the fact that Mañalac was actually an incorporator of the foundation, which is in violation of the Commission on Audit (COA) Circular No. 2007-001.
After the foundation was accredited, they even entered into a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with it and released the amount of P13.5 million to the foundation.
They were faulted for failing to investigate the grant of public funds to the foundation since it was not entitled to it, therefore causing damage and prejudice to the government.