Check your inbox
We just sent a link to your inbox. Click the link to continue signing in. Can’t find it? Check your spam & junk mail.
Didn't get a link?
Use password?
Check your inbox
We just sent a link to your inbox. Click the link to continue resetting your password. Can’t find it? Check your spam & junk mail.
Didn't get a link?
Check your inbox
We just sent a link to your inbox. Click the link to continue registering. Can’t find it? Check your spam & junk mail.
Didn't get a link?
Join Rappler+
Join Move
How often would you like to pay?
Annual Subscription
Monthly Subscription
Your payment was interrupted
Exiting the registration flow at this point will mean you will loose your progress
MANILA, Philippines – The Sandiganbayan ruled against Former PNP Chief Alan La Madrid Purisima and 16 other co-accused in a 3-year-old graft case filed against them, adding the defendants would have to argue their case and present evidence in a trial to prove their innocence.
Prosecutors said the accused PNP officials gave undue preference to Werfast Documentation Agency, which was awarded a contract to handle deliveries of firearms permits and licenses. This, even though Werfast wasn't duly accredited as a courier service according to government regulations.
In a resolution dated June 13, but released only on Monday, July 15, the Sandiganbayan Sixth DIvision denied 11 separate motions filed by the defendants, who asked for the leave of court to file demurrers to evidence which would challenge the sufficiency of documentary and testimonal evidence presented by the prosecution to support its case.
If a leave of court was granted, the accused could try to attack the relevance and materiality of given evidence by prosecutors and attempt to convince the anti-graft court that they cannot overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. The defense could also present evidence to refute the allegations and prove the existence of reasonable doubt even in the case of an adverse ruling.
The Sandiganbayan, however, ruled against the motions and has previously dismissed earlier challenges made by the defendants as it related to the validity of the indictment, the sufficiency of evidence, and the existence of probable cause.
“After carefully reviewing the accused’ respective Motions and the prosecution’s evidence, this Court resolves to deny the motions of the accused,” the Sandiganbayan said.
Aside from Purisima, the graft charge also included the following names:
Private defendants also named in the case were the following Werfast executives:
The Sandiganbayan's ruling also says the defendants may still choose to file demurrers to evidence but they would have to do so without leave of court. This is seen as risky, as they will be deemed to have waived their right to present evidence in the event that the court might rule against them.
The court ruling is still subject to appeal, even if trial dates for the defense presentation have been set for this month. – Rappler.com