The Sandiganbayan Second Division on Tuesday junked the appeal of Maasin City Vice Mayor Maloney Labatos Samaco to challenge the evidence in the graft case filed against him over the alleged anomalous purchase of P10 million worth of communication devices in 2007.

In a resolution penned by Associate Justice Michael Frederick Musngi of the anti-graft court’s Second Division, it stated that the motion for leave to file demurrer filed by Maloney was denied for lack of merit.

In its ruling, the Sandiganbayan said that the evidence of the prosecution establishes a prima facie case against the accused.

“The prosecution was able to establish a prima facie case against the accused and the reasons stated in these motions are matters or defense that should be raised during a full-blown trial of the case.”

Associate Justices Oscar Herrera Jr. and Lorifel Pahimna concurred with the decision of the Second Division dated 24 October.

The motions filed by Samaco’s co-accused former Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) chairman Crispin Mendoza Arong Jr; BAC vice chairman Feorillo Abiera Demeterio Jr; BAC members Aniceto Felicilda Narit, Amado Palman Acasio, Conseulo Segun Ladrera; and private individual Ma. Luzviminda Lopez of Philflex Trading and General Merchandise were also denied.

Then serving as city mayor, Samaco was accused taking advantage of his position when he unlawfully and criminally give unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference to Philflex for the procurement of long range cordless telephones.

According to the complaint filed by the Office of the Ombudsman, the accused opted for direct contracting without any justification in violation of Republic Act 9184 or the Government Procurement Reform Act and its implementing rules and regulations.

In his motion, Samaco said that the evidence presented by the prosecution is insufficient to prove that there was conspiracy among the accused in the commission of the offense charged.

He also claimed that there was failure to prove that resorting to direct contracting was without justification and not compliant with Republic Act 9184.

Arong, Demetrio, Narit, Acasio and Ladrera in their motions argued that the allegation that the accused awarded or caused the award of the items purchased has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The prosecution has also failed to prove that they facilitated the payment of P10 million, they said.

In its comment, the prosecution said the evidence that were presented prove that the officials violated the law when they resorted to direct contracting without valid justification.

Because of the failure to conduct public bidding, the prosecution said the government was put at a disadvantage as it was deprived of the opportunity to determine whether the contract was the most advantageous.