The Sandiganbayan has upheld its earlier decision to convict three ex-officials of the now-defunct Technology and Livelihood Resource Center accused of having played a key role in the misuse of P9.8 million pork barrel funds of a former Laguna lawmaker.

In a resolution dated 13 May, the anti-graft court Sixth Division denied the motions for reconsideration of ex-TLRC deputy director general Dennis Cunanan, chief accountant Marivic Jover, and group manager Maria Rosalinda Lacsamana due to lack of merit.

The three sought to challenge the Sandiganbayan's verdict in February, in which they were found guilty of violating Section 3 (e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019), and malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code.

They were also found civilly liable and were ordered to indemnify P9.8 million to the government and refund the same to the Bureau of Treasury (BTr) with a 6 percent interest per annum.

The case stemmed from the alleged unlawful disbursement of former Laguna Rep. Danton Bueser's P9.8 million Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) to AARON Foundation Philippines Inc. (AFPI) as project implementor of his livelihood projects for his district in Laguna in 2007.

Graft probers said that Cunanan, Jover, and Lacsamana gave unwarranted benefits to AFPI president Alfredo Ronquillo, who were acquitted due to his death, by processing and approving the disbursement vouchers for the release of the PDAF funds, notwithstanding the AFPI's ineligibility to undertake the project.

The investigation later revealed that the projects turned out to be ghost or non-existent.

In their appeal, Cunanan disputed the fact that Sandiganbayan's decision to acquit their co-accused, TLRC ex-department manager Francisco Figura, whom he claimed, similarly situated, if not worse off, violated their due process and equal protection.

The prosecution, however, countered that Figura's acquittal was entirely different from his conviction.

The Sandiganbayan, on the one hand, deemed their rationale a "plan sophistry."

"The court has painstakingly given their postulates the corresponding thorough and objective review but, on the real and proper issues completely discussed and resolved by the court, the obvious convolutions of the same arguments are evidently unavailing," it said.

"At bottom, no substantial and compelling and substantial reason can persuade the court to modify, much less reverse, the assailed decision," the Sandiganbayan ruled.