The Sandiganbayan Sixth Division has stood firm on its decision to deny several former Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) officials permission to challenge the prosecution’s evidence midway through their trial.
In a recent 10-page resolution, the anti-graft court rejected the motions for reconsideration filed by the ex-officials, who are facing charges of malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents over alleged irregularities in a flood control project.
The court reiterated that pausing to evaluate the evidence now would disrupt the trial’s progress.
“Upon careful examination of the records, the Court resolves to deny the Motions for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence … as granting the respective motions would only serve to delay the proceedings,” the court said.
The legal challenge was mounted by former DPWH engineers and officials Gerald Pacanan, Dominic Serrano, Juliet Calvo, Dennis Abagon, Montrexis Tamayo, Lerma Cayco, and Felisardo Casuno.
In their petitions, the defendants argued that the state’s evidence failed to show any conspiracy or prove they directly participated in the alleged offenses. Some also accused the court of brushing off their specific arguments by simply labeling their requests as a delay tactic.
The Sandiganbayan, however, clarified that it is not legally obligated to thoroughly dissect every argument at this stage of the trial.
“The word ‘decision’ in the abovementioned provision pertains to a decision or judgment on the merits. It does not refer to resolutions or orders on interlocutory or incidental matters,” the court said.
The court further explained its position on the nature of the defendants’ request:
“At present, this Court is only being asked to resolve the matter of granting or denying leave for the accused to file their respective demurrers to evidence,” the resolution stated.
“It is not required to decide on the full merits of the case,” it added.
With the motions denied, the court’s scheduled timeline remains unchanged.
The accused must now decide whether to present their defense evidence or go ahead and file their demurrers without the court’s official endorsement—a move that carries the legal risk of waiving their right to present a defense if denied.