Sandiganbayan denies flood control accused's bid for justices' inhibition

The Sandiganbayan’s Sixth Division has denied the bid of a former regional director of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) tagged in the flood control mess for the recusal of the anti-graft court’s justices in the P289 million malversation case against him.

In a 21-page resolution, the anti-graft court junked ex-DPWH IV-B regional director Gerald Pacanan’s argument of the justice’s wrong conclusion that the embedded steel sheet piles for a flood control project in Oriental Mindoro only measured at three meters in length instead of 12.

“Accused Pacanan failed to support with clear and convincing evidence his bare assertion that the fact that the Court made conclusions of fact shows partiality on the part of the Court’s justices. Hence, there is no valid ground for their voluntary inhibition. His Motion for Inhibition is denied for lack of merit,” the Sandiganbayan said.

The Sandiganbayan said inspections conducted on September 9, 2025 (first section), September 15, 2025 (near middle section) and October 23, 2025 in first section (beginning section) all showed that the sheet steel piles were only around three meters.

This sufficiently supported the conclusion that three-meter sheet steel piles were used for the completed portions of the flood control project.

“Without doubt, the Court made factual findings in the Resolution dated March 10, 2026 denying the accused’s respective petitions for bail, and in the Resolution dated March 31, 2026 denying the accused’s respective Motions for Reconsideration,” the Sandiganbayan resolution read.

“In the said excavated portions, the SSPs exposed all measured, by actual measurement or through visual comparison, to be around three meters. It is improbable that the three-meter SSPs were all conveniently located in the excavated portions, while the rest of the SSPs in the unexcavated portion were 12 meters in length,” it added.

The anti-graft court said the prosecution’s evidence “established a prima facie case from the best evidence obtainable.”

“The more logical conclusion would be that if an excavation were made in any given portion of the structure, the SSPs would also measure to be around three meters. It is incumbent upon the said accused to present evidence to disprove the same,” it added.

The Sandiganbayan noted that the Supreme Court (SC) ruling on the Revilla v. Sandiganbayan (First Division) case already stated that the anti-graft court’s factual findings for purposes of bail are generally binding upon the SC, subject to certain exceptions.

Earlier, the anti-graft court denied Pacanan and his eight other co-accused’s motion for bail in March as government prosecutors were able to show that the evidence of the accused’s guilt is strong.

“It is clear that the Court is not precluded from arriving at conclusions of fact in determining whether the evidence of guilt is strong for purposes of bail. Unless it is shown that the Sandiganbayan exercised its discretion out of whim, caprice, or outright arbitrariness amounting to grave abuse of discretion, or if the case falls under the said exceptions, the factual findings of the Sandiganbayan in the bail proceedings will not be set aside,” it said. — JMA, GMA News