Sandiganbayan denies bid to consolidate flood control raps vs. Co, 16 others

The Sandiganbayan has denied the Ombudsman’s bid to consolidate the malversation and graft cases against former Ako Bicol Party-list Rep. Zaldy Co and 16 others in connection with a substandard P289 million flood control project in Naujan, Oriental Mindoro.

In a resolution dated December 10, the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division said granting the Ombudsman prosecutors’ request to consolidate the charges might delay the trial.

The Sandiganbayan Fifth Division said the anti-graft court’s Sixth Division, which handles the malversation charge, already set dates for pre-trial and marking of evidence on January 19 and 26, 2026, as well as February 5, 12, 19, and 26, 2026.

These dates, the anti-graft court said, will have to be rescheduled if the consolidation will push through.

“In the information for the charge of malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents in SB-25-CRM-0041, the amount of P215,331,394.47 million is the amount alleged to have been misappropriated. The amount is well beyond the maximum threshold amount and carries an imposable penalty of reclusion perpetua where bail is no longer a matter of right,” the resolution said.

It went on: “Cognizant of its duty, and acting on the Urgent Petitions for Bail filed by the accused, the Sixth Division has already made settings for the marking and pre-trial. Consolidating SB-25-CRM-0039 [graft charge before Fifth Division] with SB-25-CRM-0041 [pending before the Sixth Division], instead of expediting the trial of both cases, may necessarily delay both.”

The Sandiganbayan explained that “granting consolidation will only change these dates and may unnecessarily derail the bail proceedings and cause delay.”

Even if the cases are consolidated and the Fifth Division proceeds to conduct the required bail hearing, the anti-graft court said the hearing and resolution of the graft charge in SB-25-CRM-0039 “will necessarily be delayed" until the bail hearing for the charge of malversation in SB-25- CRM-0041 is finished.

In addition, the Sandiganbayan said any delay in the presentation of witnesses in the bail hearing will also delay the hearing and resolution of the actual trial of the principal cases.

“It must equally be stressed that during the bail hearing, the principal matter to be resolved is the accused’s entitlement to bail by a judicial determination of the strength of evidence against them. Indeed, the burden imposed on the prosecution is only to establish strong evidence of guilt and concomitantly, the accused need only prove that the prosecution’s evidence does not meet this threshold to be entitled to bail. As the accused may be keenly aware, consolidating the cases may only muddle the issues,” the Sandiganbayan said.

“Thus, while the court may concede, and as the prosecution so claims, that indeed, there may be identical parties, commonality of the lineage of the offenses, and perhaps even the evidence to be presented, there is a fundamental difference in the preliminary issues to be resolved, specifically the differing burden of proof in a bail hearing,” it added.

Ultimately, the anti-graft court said having the flood control cases handled by different divisions of the anti-graft court bodes well since it maximizes the Sandiganbayan’s resources. 

“It bears highlighting that this anti-graft court readily sits in seven divisions. The same avowed benefits of the requested consolidation would be similarly achieved if this court’s adjudicative capacity is maximized and each case filed before its divisions proceeds to trial as expeditiously as possible, ever cognizant of the rights of the accused,” the Sandiganbayan said.

In the same resolution, the anti-graft court also denied Co’s manifestation seeking a copy of the Ombudsman’s motion to consolidate and to comment on it within five days.

The Sandiganbayan noted that the resigned lawmaker has still not submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court and is still at large.

“In line with the recently promulgated case of Vallacar Transit Inc. v. Yanson. The court must apply the fugitive disentitlement doctrine and deny his Manifestation with Motion as he is not entitled to seek affirmative relief. Accused Elizaldy ‘Zaldy’ S. Co’s Manifestation with Motion denied for lack of merit,” it added. — JMA, GMA Integrated News