Dimaporo plea vs arrest warrant opposed

Lanao del Norte Representative Abdullah Dimaporo INQUIRER FILE PHOTO

MANILA, Philippines—State prosecutors have opposed the twin motions of Lanao del Norte Rep. Abdullah Dimaporo seeking the recall of the warrant of arrest against him and the dismissal of the graft and malversation cases in connection with his involvement in the P728-million fertilizer fund scam.

Citing lack of merit, a nine-page comment and opposition to the Sandiganbayan’s Fifth Division by government prosecutor Omar L. Sagadal said Dimaporo failed to raise any substantial argument that would warrant the dismissal of the two criminal complaints against him.

In his motions dated Aug. 13, 2013, Dimaporo insisted lack of probable cause to indict him in the absence of the elements of the offenses charged against him.

He pointed out that court erred in adopting in its entirety the prosecution’s memorandum dated March 25, 2013, recommending his indictment despite substantial evidence negating the existence of probable cause against him.

Dimaporo also argued that the court erred in ruling that the Commission on Audit (COA) report prepared by State Auditor Edwin Canios was irrelevant in the determination of probable cause in the instant cases.

The prosecution stressed that the issue on the existence of probable cause has been rendered moot and academic when the accused, through his counsel, manifested during the hearing of this case on Aug. 5 that he was submitting to the custody of the court.

It also said that records of the cases showed controverting evidence and supporting documents submitted by the accused-movant, prompting the Ombudsman to file the information.

It likewise said that the finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not, a crime has been committed and there is enough reason to believe that it was committed by the accused.”

“It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt,” the prosecution said. “Thus, the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause does not touch on the issue of guilt or innocence of the accused. It is not the function of the Office of the Ombudsman to rule on such issue.”

Dimaporo was allegedly involved in the diversion of P5 million to Lanao Foundation Inc (LFI), by making it appear that fertilizers were indeed distributed to farmers under the Department of Agriculture’s farm input and farm implement program.

Also implicated were provincial agriculturist Isabelo Luna VI and private individuals Felizardo Dragon, Evangeline Ontiveros, Rosalinda Bisenio and Elmer Sayre who were charged under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. All accused private individuals were officials of the foundation established by Dimaporo himself in 1994.

The court has set P30,000 bail for each for the graft charge.