Espino loses bid to suppress black sand mining evidence

The antigraft court Sandiganbayan has denied the plea of Pangasinan Rep. Amado Espino Jr. for permission to challenge, through a demurrer, sufficiency of evidence against him in a graft case involving black sand mining in the Lingayen Gulf.

In a seven-page resolution dated Sept. 5, the court’s Sixth Division said Espino should present evidence to prove his claim that no black sand mining took place in the gulf and that he did not act with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.

“The truth of [Espino’s arguments] can best be passed upon after a full-blown trial on the merits,” read the resolution penned by Associate Justice Kevin Narce Vivero.

Waiver

Espino may opt to still challenge the evidence presented against him but this would mean waiver of his right to present evidence to counter that of the prosecution.

This means the antigraft court may rule on Espino’s case based only on the evidence that the Ombudsman presented.

Similar motions filed by Espino’s coaccused, provincial administrator Rafael Baraan, and provincial housing and urban development coordinating officer Alvin Bigay, were also denied by the court.

But the court granted permission to the board directors of Alexandra Mining and Oil Ventures Inc. and Xypher Builders Inc. to file a demurrer and contest the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence.

Private respondents

These two companies secured extraction permits from Espino when he was governor in 2011, allegedly despite lacking registration with the Philippine Contractors Accreditation Board and area clearances from the Mines and Geosciences Bureau.

The board directors—Cesar Detera, Lolita Bolayog, Cynthia Camara, Edwin Alcazar, Gina Alcazar, Ann Lyn Detera, Denise Ann Sia Kho Po and Glenn Subia—questioned why they were charged on the sole basis of their positions in the two companies.

The court allowed them to file the demurrers that would elaborate their arguments, saying their indictment “deserves a hard look or full review.”

The lawyer of Espino and his two coaccused on Monday said the decision was just “procedural and not substantive.”

“We were only asking for permission,” said lawyer Nolan Evangelista.

“But the court said we can file a demurrer even without permission,” he said.

A demurrer is a written challenge to facts presented before the court against the Pangasinan officials.

CA ruling

Evangelista said the court denial had no effect on the criminal case.

Last year, the Court of Appeals (CA) ruled that the extraction of black sand in Lingayen was not a mining operation.

But the CA found Baraan guilty of simple misconduct and penalized him with a three-month suspension from office.

In December last year, the Supreme Court declared the CA decision final and executory. —With a report from Gabriel Cardinoza