The Sandiganbayan has denied the appeal of a former official of the now-defunct state firm National Agribusiness Corp. (Nabcor) implicated in the alleged anomalous procurement of P99 million post-harvest facilities to have her graft case dismissed.

Nabcor human resources and administrative manager Encarnita Cristina Munsod petitioned the Sandiganbayan to reconsider its February decision, in which she was sentenced to up to eight years behind bars for violating Section 3 (e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019).

In a resolution dated 24 June but only made public on Tuesday, the anti-graft court Third Division ruled that there is “no compelling reason to amend, alter, revise or even reverse its ruling.”

“At the onset, the arguments posed by movant-accused Munsod, in her motion, have already been thoroughly considered by this court in the assailed decision of February 23, 2034,” the court said.

Munsod, along with other Nabcor officials, were sued by giving unwarranted preference to Agri Component Corporation (AgriCom) for purchasing post-harvest facilities and equipment, including a rice mill, flatbed dryer, shed and storage, crop threshers, rice harvesters or reapers, among others to the tune of P99.9 million without any competitive bidding.

Graft investigators said there was an overpayment of at least P12 million because Nabcor released the full payment to AgriCom despite the undelivered status of some of the post-harvest equipment.

In her motion, Monsod contended she was not in cahoots with her peers at Nabcor since she neither prepared the disbursement vouchers nor was responsible for any document attached to them.

Therefore, she claimed that he did not commit inexcusable negligence or give unwarranted benefit or advantage to AgriCom.

The Sandiganbayan, however, did not buy Monsod’s explanation, asserting that her conspiratorial acts and omissions with other Nabcor officials, which were instrumental in carrying out the transaction, eventually resulted in AgriCom receiving unwarranted benefits.

“Their gross inexcusable negligence became even more evident when they wantonly disregarded the dictates of relevant laws and CoA circulars in the preparation of the pertinent disbursement vouchers, purchase orders, delivery receipts, and their required attachments for the release of funds,” the court said.