MANILA, Philippines?A Department of Public Works and Highways official implicated in the installation of allegedly overpriced lamp posts in Cebu worth P365 million is pressing the Sandiganbayan to direct prosecutors to substantiate the charges against him and his co-accused.

The Sandiganbayan had earlier denied the omnibus motion of DPWH regional director Robert Lala and his six co-accused to order the prosecution to issue a bill of particulars, or a more specific outline of the charges filed against them.

The Sandiganbayan's Fourth Division ruled that the information for violation of the anti-graft and corrupt practices act filed against the DPWH officials was sufficient in substance.

Lala's co-accused from the DPWH are Marlina Alvizo, Pureza Fernandez, Cresencio Bagolor, Agustinito Hermoso, Luis Galang and Restituto Diano.

In their motion for reconsideration, the DPWH officials said the accusations against them contained ?generalizations and conclusions of law,? and the lack of specifications hindered them from properly pleading and preparing for trial.

They implored the court to direct the prosecution to indicate their acts that showed their ?deliberate intent, manifest partiality or evident bad faith.?

They noted that they were charged for their actions related to the preparation of documents, the conduct of the procurement process and the award, implementation and releasing of payment.

They said that they should be informed as to what specific documents formed the basis for the charges against them.

?Preparation of documents being one of the alleged constitutive acts, the documents have to be particularly stated and not left merely as 'other related documents' for the accused to figure for themselves what these are. It is clearly a general statement that any document not contemplated in the charge can be inserted during trial,? they said.

The DPWH officials also said the prosecution must specify the legal requirements that they failed to observe.

Furthermore, they contented that the charges that they released 90 percent of the excessive contract price, as compared to the COA cost evaluation, was not particular enough to show excessiveness.

They said that the allegation of excessive contract price was dependent on the COA evaluation, but the latter has not been identified as final. The COA evaluation may change later, they added.

?Plaintiff should be required to specify if it is final and the date of its finality; otherwise, the non-finality of the COA cost evaluation affects plaintiff's claim of excessive contract price, as COA could change its position in favor of the accused,? they said.