Court asks joint trial for four cases vs. Marcoleta over P75-million campaign donations

The Sandiganbayan Sixth Division has asked the anti-graft’s Third Division to allow a joint trial for the P75-million plunder case and three other counts of violation of receiving gifts against Senator Rodante Marcoleta and three others, saying the allegations in the three non-plunder cases are necessary elements of plunder.

“Considering that the present case for Violation of Presidential Decree No. 46 and the Plunder case pending before the Third Division arose from the same set of facts, consolidation of the said cases is proper because Violation of Presidential Decree No. 46 is necessarily included in Plunder under Sec. 1 (d) (2) of Republic Act No. 7080,” the court said.

“After examining the Information and the Resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman, this Court finds that the present case should be consolidated with E-SB-26-CRM-0018, for Plunder, which is the lowest docket number,” the Sandiganbayan added.

The other divisions where the cases were raffled off to were the First Division and Fourth Division.

Under Rule 8, Section 4(b) of the 2018 Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan (2018 Revised Internal Rules), the consolidation and transfer of cases authorizes a Division of the Sandiganbayan to motu proprio effect the consolidation of cases if the propriety of such consolidation becomes apparent after the cases are raffled.

"Applying the foregoing to the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the charge of Violation of Presidential Decree No. 46 is merely a component of Plunder in E-SB-26-CRM-0018. However, since the present Information for Violation of Presidential Decree No. 46 had already been filed, in addition to the Information for Plunder, and the same were raffled to different Divisions of the Sandiganbayan, the proper course of action is to consolidate the present case for Violation of Presidential Decree No. 46 with the case for Plunder for joint trial," the court added.

Sandiganbayan Third Division chairperson and Associate Justice Karl Miranda earlier said that the issuance of the warrant of arrest against Marcoleta and his co-accused “signifies only that after evaluating the records, the court found probable cause to believe that the accused committed the offense charge.”

“Probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest exists when the facts and circumstances would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested,” Miranda told reporters.

“The court has no politics. No politics. This is a court of law guided only by the Constitution, the law applicable and the evidence to be presented by the parties,” Miranda added.

The Office of the Ombudsman filed the charges against Marcoleta on Friday, July 3.

“The moment gratitude is used to explain away P75 million in undisclosed money, it stops being 'utang na loob' and becomes exactly what our plunder and bribery laws were written to prevent," the Ombudsman said. — BM, GMA News