Filtered By: Topstories
News

Sandigan junks Ampatuan's bid to challenge evidence in food supply scam


Citing lack of merit, the Sandiganbayan anti-graft court has denied the bid of Mayor Datu Sajid Islam Uy Ampatuan to allow an expert examine the evidence in the cases against him.

Ampatuan, mayor of Shariff Saydona Mustapha town in Maguindanao, is facing graft, malversation and falsification of public documents charges.

In a five-page resolution, the anti-graft court argued that Ampatuan’s Motions for Examination by Questioned Documents Expert concerning the transfer of P16.3 million of public funds to an non-existent supplier for procurement of food supplies in 2009 serves no purpose since these pleadings  failed to indicate the remedy that the accused sought from the Court.

“They did not specify the person whom or the institution which, whether private or public, he wants to conduct the contemplated examination—a choice that is absolutely within the accused movant's sole prerogative being the chief architect of his defense,” the Sandiganbayan said.

“Hence, assuming that a relief is warranted, the Court is left to speculate how it should accordingly act. Wherefore, accused-movant Sajid Islam U. Ampatuan's Motions for Examination by Questioned Documents Expert are hereby denied,” the Sandiganbayan added.

Likewise, the anti-graft court also said such contemplated examination, if granted, will serve no purpose but to delay the proceedings because both the prosecution and defense already agreed that the signatures of Ampatuan in the documents involved in the cases were forgeries during a February 20 hearing.

“The question of whether the said signatures are forgeries was never put in issue. Hence, any examination intended to prove the fact of forgeries will just be a useless ceremony since it seeks to establish a fact that is not disputed,” the Sandiganbayan said.

Finally, the Sandiganbayan pointed out that Ampatuan erred in asking the court to allow him to present a witness which was not listed in the already approved pre-trial order.

“The rule is that a pre-trial order shall bind the parties, limit the trial to matters not disposed of, and control the course of the action during the trial, unless modified by the court to prevent manifest injustice,” the Sandiganbayan said.

“It is a fact that the accused-movant did not bother to offer, whether in his Motions or during the hearing, a justifiable reason to allow the presentation of an additional witness or to show that he will suffer manifest injustice should his motion be denied,” the Sandiganbayan added. —LDF, GMA News

LOADING CONTENT