Ejercito, coaccused seek dismissal of graft case, cite lack of evidence
Senator Joseph Victor “JV” Ejercito. LYN RILLON/INQUIRER FILE PHOTO
CITING lack of evidence, suspended Sen. JV Ejercito and five local officials have asked the Sandiganbayan to dismiss the graft case filed against them over the purchase of firearms using San Juan City’s calamity funds when he was still mayor.
In a 58-page demurrer filed on Saturday, Ejercito and his five corespondents claimed that the prosecution had failed to show proof they committed any prohibited acts, caused undue injury to the government by giving unwarranted benefits to a private party, and acted negligently or in bad faith.
“The testimonial and documentary evidence [the prosecution] presented during trial is insufficient to establish the existence of all essential elements [of graft],” their motion read.
Joining Ejercito in questioning the case were San Juan City administrator Ranulfo Dacalos, city attorney Romualdo delos Santos, treasurer Rosalinda Estrella Marasigan, budget officer Lorenza Catalan Ching and engineer Danilo Salcedo Mercado.
They were charged in court for using P2.1 million in calamity funds to purchase high-powered firearms in 2008, even though the city was not under a state of calamity and the guns were not among the allowable items to be purchased. Prosecutors also accused them of procurement anomalies, claiming the process was rushed without competitive bidding.
Ejercito and his copetitioners, however, said that even the prosecution’s evidence would show that the submachine guns were not charged to the city’s calamity fund.
Instead, the Land Bank of the Philippines checks presented by prosecutors were charged against the city government’s general fund, they added.
Although the calamity fund formed part of the general fund in the city’s bank account, the demurrer noted that witness Leticia Reyes
Alcober had provided no explanation on how the check would be sourced from this portion of the account.
The accused also maintained that the calamity fund was “intact” because the city ended up passing a supplemental budget later.
At the same time, they denied the prosecutors’ contention that the deal was “consummated” because payment was made before the supplemental budget was passed; the demurrer argued that government procurement does not stop at disbursement and would still have to undergo accounting.
Even if the calamity fund was used to pay for the guns, the demurrer maintained that this was legal under City Ordinances Nos. 9, 10 and 19. It also cited Joint Memorandum Circulars Nos. 2003-1 and 2003-2 of the budget and local government departments which state that calamity funds may be used for manmade disasters such as insurgency and terrorism.
