Sandigan denies appeal of 5 officials guilty in pork barrel scam

Sandiganbayan. INQUIRER PHOTO / NINO JESUS ORBETA

MANILA, Philippines — The Sandiganbayan has denied the motion for reconsideration filed by five former officials of now-dissolved government-owned and -controlled corporations (GOCCs) and a nongovernment organization concerning the anti-graft court’s decision on their involvement in bogus livelihood projects reportedly funded by the pork barrel of a former Misamis Occidental lawmaker.

READ: 17 ex-GOCC, NGO execs found guilty in pork scam

In its 19-page resolution dated November 6, the Sandiganbayan upheld its decision convicting the five — Kabuhayan at Kalusugang Alay sa Masa Foundation Inc. (KKAMFI) president Flerida Alberto, former Technology Resource Center (TRC) deputy director general Dennis Cunanan; former National Livelihood Development Corp. president Gondelina Amata and asset management division chief Gregoria Buenaventura; and former National Agribusiness Corp. (Nabcor) human resource supervisor Encarnita Munsod — of graft and malversation.

Their motion for reconsiderations, which was denied for “lack of merit” — was filed separately from July to August this year.

Based on the June 28 decision, the anti-graft court’s Third Division found the said officials and 12 others guilty.

Alberto was meted a prison sentence of up to 110 years, while Cunanan was sentenced to a maximum of 27 years in prison. Both Amata and Buenaventura were sentenced to jail terms of up to 84 years and 108 years for Munsod.

According to the earlier ruling, the prison sentences of these officials depended on their “participation and conspiracy” in multiple counts of graft, malversation of public funds through falsification and malversation of public funds, particularly the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) from 2007 to 2009 of former Misamis Occidental Rep. Marina Clarete.

The case against them was filed by the Office of the Ombudsman on July 20, 2016.

In the complaint, the Ombudsman found probable cause to indict the respondents for violating Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019, or the Antigraft and Corrupt Practices Act.