Sandiganbayan junks appeal of trader, ex-customs exec
The Sandiganbayan Fifth Division has denied the bid of a former Bureau of Customs (BoC) official and businessman to dismiss graft charges against them over a purportedly anomalous P10-million sugar deal in 2000.
In a 13-page resolution dated 1 April 2024, the court found “unpersuasive” the grounds cited by Benjamin Bongon, ex-auction and cargo disposal chief of the BoC-Port of Cebu, and businessman Roger Ang in their motion to dismiss.
The two were found guilty of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act 3019) but innocent of estafa through falsification of public documents in December 2017 by the Cebu Regional Trial Court.
The Sandiganbayan affirmed in October 2023 the lower court’s decision, which they then appealed. The case stemmed from the 28,000 bags of unmanifested imported sugar carried by M/V Affy that the BoC seized in 1999. The shipment was auctioned off in 2000 with Ang depositing P21 million for the 28,000 bags
However, a composite team reported to Bongon that only 13,753 bags of sugar were offloaded from the vessel and subsequently acquired by Ang.
This had Ang being refunded of P10,859,063, corresponding to the surplus of his initial payment of P21,341,600. Bongon allegedly colluded with Ang in deliberately misrepresenting the number of bags of refined sugar offloaded.
In their motion for reconsideration, Bongon and Ang claimed errors in the RTC’s findings, including a lack of evidence to support graft as it was allegedly merely based on presumption.
However, the Sandiganbayan found “no compelling reason to grant the appellant’s motion for reconsideration and considered their grounds in support of their motions unpersuasive.”
The Sandiganbayan pointed out that Bongon, who is a lawyer, was at fault for the erroneous filing of his appeal before the Court of Appeals, citing the Rules of Court stipulating that “an appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be transferred to the appropriate court, but shall be dismissed outright.”
To recall, the two challenged the RTC’s ruling by filing a plea before the Court of Appeals to reverse their graft conviction. The Sandiganbayan, however, said the case falls under its jurisdiction and not in the CA since it involved graft.