THE SANDIGANBAYAN WILL proceed with the trial of former Bukidnon Rep. Nereus Acosta, a candidate in President-elect Benigno ?Noynoy? Aquino III?s Senate ticket, along with Acosta?s mother and aunt who have all been accused of graft.

In a resolution, the antigraft court?s fourth division junked Acosta?s motion to quash the four graft cases filed by the Office of the Ombudsman against him and his family.

The fourth division said: ?Movants contend that the four informations in these cases should be quashed because some of the elements of the crime charged are absent. As opposed to their allegations, this court finds that the informations in these cases are sufficient in form and substance and ought to stay.?

Acosta ran for senator but lost under the Liberal Party which fielded Aquino as its standard-bearer.

The Ombudsman filed in March four graft charges against Acosta and his relatives for alleged violations of the antigraft law between 2001 and 2002 involving projects funded by Acosta?s pork barrel.

But Acosta, his mother Socorro, mayor of Manolo Fortich, and aunt Nemia Bornidor filed a motion to quash, arguing that the charges filed by the Ombudsman did not constitute any violation.

The first case alleged that Acosta transferred a P2.5-million solar tunnel dryer bought with his pork barrel from Talakag to Manolo Fortich town for use by the Bukidnon Integrated Network of Home Industries Inc. (BINHI) where his parents allegedly served as incorporators.

The Ombudsman also accused Acosta of conspiring with Bornidor to have P2.5 million in financial assistance released from the former?s Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), euphemistically called the pork barrel, to BINHI.

The Ombudsman also filed two other cases accusing Acosta and his mother of conspiring to issue P5.5 million in financial assistance to the Bukidnon Vegetable Producers Cooperative (BVPC) where Acosta?s mother, father and aunt allegedly served as officers.

In his motion to quash, Acosta argued that the transfer of the solar dryer did not constitute a violation, being covered by a legal memorandum of agreement (MOA).

The court, however, ruled: ?Movants? detailed discourse on how or why said transfer of the dryer is not illegal as it is allegedly covered by a MOA, is a matter of defense best ventilated in the course of a trial.?

Acosta also earlier maintained that the P5.5-million loan assistance to the BVPC would benefit local residents. The Ombudsman responded, in opposing the motion to quash, that the ?unwarranted benefit? given to BVPC ?caused undue injury to the government.?