Sandiganbayan upholds graft conviction of ex-Bukidnon solon over 'pork' misuse

The Sandiganbayan has affirmed the conviction of ex-Bukidnon congressman Candido Pancrudo, Jr. and non government entity Farmerbusiness Development Corp. (FDC) representative Johanne Edward Labay on multiple counts of graft and malversation charges over the use of the lawmaker’s P36.9 million pork barrel.

In an eight-page Resolution dated July 10, the anti-graft court denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the two on its April 14, 2023 decision.

The Sandiganbayan said that the tenor of Pancrudo’s letters allowing the transfer of his pork barrel, officially known as Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), to FDC are not merely recommendatory.

It added that Pancrudo justified the transfer with the “lame reason of FDC’s office being inside the premises of a  government agency and perhaps qualified to implement his PDAF-funded projects.”

“In his four letters, he explains that the partnership is necessary to efficiently undertake the livelihood program of this  representation and that the transfer of funds 'would greatly help in the realization of our objective.' Thus, his ratiocination why FDC is a worthy recipient of his PDAF allotment, borne on the official letterhead of the  august House of Representatives, already carried the imprimatur and weight of congressional approbation,” the Sandiganbayan said.

“Their identification of a partner NGO or PO (people’s organization) would  have been deemed regular and accorded the badge of validity, but only if such selection could have reasonably passed regulatory muster and had  not been executed with such arbitrariness or carelessness. Here, accused Pancrudo on multiple times endorsed, sans any basis but the NGO’s address, the transfer of his PDAF to FDC as a partner supposedly necessary for his livelihood projects to take off,” the court added.

Pancrudo and Labay denied the allegations.  As quoted in the Sandiganbayan resolution, their motions "essentially contend that the Court erred in convicting them of the crimes charged because the evidence of the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt or to prove that they conspired with their co-accused in committing the crimes charged."

Pancrudo also said he did not have knowledge how or where his PDAF was spent and denied the signatures meant to lend concurrence and satisfaction to the supposed completion of the projects.

The Sandiganbayan, however, rejected such denials.

“Time and again, the Supreme Court has eschewed denial as an 'inherently weak defense.' Denial and alibi are among the weakest, if not the weakest, defenses in criminal prosecution. It is well-settled that denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a self-serving assertion that deserves no weight in law,” the Sandiganbayan said.

“Pancrudo cries of forgery of the signatures appearing on the subsequent liquidation documents but manifestly fails to adduce evidence to reinforce his claim. Quite contrary to common human experience and conduct, if indeed he and his constituents lost funds intended to uplift the latter, he would have at least endeavored to find out how such a massive amount was funneled from his office and diverted from his intended beneficiaries,” the anti-graft court added.

In addition, the anti-graft court cited provisions of its April 14 decision stating that Labay’s certification and Pancrudo’s concurrence as to the verity of projects completion “render the two of them complicit in making untruthful statements, that is, passing off then projects as having been duly implemented when, in fact, no sufficient proof exists that they were indeed carried out and the truth of the matter is that the livelihood activities supposedly conducted were ghost or inexistent.”

Sandiganbayan Special Second Division Associate Justices Oscar Herrera, Arthur Malabaguio, Lorifel Pahimna and Rafael Lagos concurred with the July 10 Resolution.

Only Sandiganbayan Special Second Division Associate Justice Michael Musngi maintained his dissent.

The Sandiganbayan earlier sentenced Pancrudo and Labay to six to eight years in prison and perpetual disqualification from public office for each of the convictions on eight counts of graft charges. This jail time is on top of the P36.9 million civil liability that the anti-graft court imposed on them, payable to the Bureau of Treasury.

In addition, the Sandiganbayan imposed the following varying jail time and penalties in the conviction of each individual on four counts of malversation of public funds:

• 10 to 18 years jail time, P16 million fine and P16 million civil liability for case number SB-17-CRM-2104
• 14 to 18 years jail time, P4.8 million fine and P4.8 million civil liability for case number SB-17-CRM-2105
• 14 to 18 years jail time, P8 million fine and P8  million civil liability for SB-17-CRM-2106
• 10 to 16 years jail time, P4 million fine and P4 million civil liability for SB-17-CRM-2107

The fines are equivalent to the amount malversed, while the civil liability is payable to the Bureau of Treasury.

The anti-graft court also sentenced Pancrudo and Labay to two to eight years each in prison and to suffer perpetual special disqualification from public office for their conviction in four counts of malversation of public funds via falsification of public documents on top of the following different amounts of civil liability:

• P600,000 per individual for SB-17-CRM-2108
• P1 million per individual for SB-17-CRM-2109
• P500,000 per individual for SB-17-CRM-2110
• P2 million per individual for SB-17-CRM-2111

—LDF, GMA Integrated News