Sandiganbayan junks ex-QC councilor's plea to dismiss graft raps

Former Quezon City councilor Dante de Guzman has failed to induce the Sandiganbayan to reverse its previous ruling, in which he was found guilty of four counts of graft over P6.41 million worth of “ghost” supplies.

In a resolution dated 26 June but released only earlier this week, the anti-graft court Sixth Division said it was “not persuaded” by the grounds raised by De Guzman in his motion, including his claims that his signatures in purchase request documents were forged.

“As this court in the assailed decision, and as previously discussed, accused De Guzman, the party claiming forgery, has the burden to prove it by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, but he failed to discharge such burden,” the court said.

In May, the Sandiganbayan sentenced De Guzman to up to 32 years for violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019) for gross inexcusable negligence owing to the non-distribution of P6,411,261.01 worth of tents, raincoats, boots, sports equipment, and food supplies supposedly for different barangays of the city’s Third District from 2008 to 2009.

Court records showed that De Guzman submitted purchase requests for the subject supplies, which were later discovered never to reach the intended beneficiaries.

Graft investigators said the items “were not distributed and could no longer be located and accounted for.”

The city government and state auditors were later furnished with a copy of the distribution lists, but the Sandiganbayan said they “appear to have prepared and falsified to conceal the non-distribution.”

In denying the appeal, the Sandiganbayan stood firm with its previous verdict that De Guzman failed to prove that his signatures on the documents were forged.

“At most, accused De Guzman proved that the questioned signatures may have been signed by another person, but he failed to show that the signing was with intent to defraud,” the court stated.

“In fine, accused De Guzman failed to convince this court that the reversal of the assailed decision is warranted,” it added.