Court dismisses 8 graft cases vs DBM exec in PDAF scam

MANILA, Philippines – The anti-graft court Sandiganbayan’s First Division has dismissed 8 counts of graft against Budget Undersecretary Mario Relampagos, and ordered the prosecution to produce additional evidence for his 8 other graft cases.

In an August 28 resolution made public Tuesday, September 2, the Sandiganbayan’s 1st division set aside the warrants of arrest against Relampagos and 3 of his staff members in relation to the 8 dismissed cases.

The resolution likewise granted amendments proposed by the prosecution, including the change of the term “Sub-Allotment Release Order (SubARO)” to “Special Allotment Release Order (SARO)” in the charge sheets for the graft cases. 

Justice Rafael Lagos had earlier admonished the prosecution for using “SubARO” in the charge sheets against Relampagos, pointing out that it has nothing to do with his office. (READ: PDAF case prosecutors hit for evidence used)

A SARO is prepared by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM). A SubARO, on the other hand, is prepared and issued by a specific line agency like the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Public Works and Highways.

The 1st division is handling the plunder and graft cases of Senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr and his co-accused. 

Relampagos faces a total of 42 counts of graft – the most for any government personality charged over the alleged misuse of lawmakers’ Priority Assistance Development Fund (PDAF) – before 3 different divisions of the Sandiganbayan. (READ: Budget exec faces graft charges for PDAF releases)

He faced 16 counts of graft – half of which now dismissed – with Revilla before the Sandiganbayan’s 1st division.

The prosecution is required to present additional evidence for the other 8 of Relampagos’ graft cases before the 1st division.

The evidence presented thus far includes a statement from state witness Benhur Luy alleging that it is at Relampagos’ office where he regularly follows up the release of the SAROs.

The court noted that none of Luy’s statements allege that Relampagos received kickbacks from the PDAF scam.

It further resolved that the prosecution cannot claim “undue haste” on the part of Relampagos and his staff in processing the SAROs.

“Nothing in the records establishes the normal time frame for the processing of a SARO….Without these data on time standards, no one can arrive at a conclusion that ‘undue haste’ accompanied the processing of a SARO,” the resolution read.

The court likewise noted in its dismissal of the 8 graft cases that it was then Budget Secretary Rolando Andaya Jr who signed most of the SAROs in question.

Andaya has not been charged for the PDAF releases he had facilitated.

Relampagos, for his part, claims he signed 5 SAROs only as “substitute signatory” of Andaya. – Rappler.com