Sandiganbayan junks appeal of ex-DOE execs vs Malampaya scam graft raps

The Sandiganbayan Third Division on Wednesday denied the motion for reconsideration filed by several former Department of Energy (DOE) officials that sought to dismiss the graft case against them in connection with the Malampaya fund scam.

In a March 11 resolution, the anti-graft court said the appeal filed by former DOE Undersecretary Donato Marcos and six others was filed out of time. 

Chaired by Associate Justice Karl Miranda, the Sandiganbayan Third Division said the deadline for filing the motion was until November 12, 2025, five days after the court’s order was issued on November 7.

However, the motion for reconsideration was submitted to the anti-graft court on November 24, 2025.

“Pursuant to the Continuous Trial Guidelines, a motion for reconsideration of the resolution of a meritorious motion shall be filed within a non-extendible period of five (5) calendar days from receipt of such resolution,” the resolution read. 

“Hence, the accused has only five (5) days therefrom or until November 12, 2025, within which to file their motion for reconsideration of the subject order,” it added. “Consequently, Marcos et al.’s motion is filed out of time and must be dismissed outright for this reason.” 

On the accused’s argument that the introduction of a specific allegation of damage violated their right to due process, the anti-graft court said their claim “fails to impress.”

“Time and time again, litigants are reminded that the essence of due process is simply to be heard. Considering that Marcos et al. have been given the opportunity to refute the claim of alleged damage or injury in the preliminary investigation and have, in fact, raised their defense against it, they cannot now claim that their right to due process has been violated,” the resolution said.

The Sandiganbayan added that the inclusion of over P1 million in “prejudice, undue injury, or damage” to the government “does not have the effect of charging another offense different or distinct from the charge contained in the original information.” 

Dissenting opinion 

On the other hand, Associate Justice Ronald Moreno said the failure of the information to allege jurisdiction over the subject matter is “not a mere defect curable by an amendment.” 

Under Republic Act 10660, the Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction over graft cases in which the alleged damage to the government or the bribery amount exceeds P1 million.

“Notably, the original information did not allege any damage to the government or bribery or damage to the government or bribery arising from the same or closely related transactions or acts in an amount not exceeding P1 million,” his dissenting opinion read.

“Here, the failure of the information to allege any damage to the government or any bribery or damage to the government or bribery arising from the same or closely related transaction or acts in an amount not exceeding P 1 million is not a mere defect, curable by a simple amendment,” it added.

Miranda, however, noted in the March 11 resolution that Marcos and others “cannot, therefore, claim they were blindsided by the additional allegation of damage or injury to the government in the amendment information.” 

The Malampaya fund scam involved the alleged misuse of billions of pesos in proceeds from the Malampaya gas field, which were allegedly diverted to ghost non-profit groups linked to businesswoman Janet Lim Napoles. — JMA, GMA Integrated News