Court rejects graft dismissal bid by ex-MisOr vice gov Pelaez

The Sandiganbayan has denied a new petition filed by former Misamis Oriental Vice Governor Jose Mari Pelaez in connection with his graft cases involving alleged irregularities in the provisional board's payroll—specifically, the alleged misuse of three publicly paid casual employees as his personal aides from 2013 to 2015.

Pelaez faces three counts under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019), following an Ombudsman investigation into a complaint filed by board member Fredrick Khu. The complaint alleged the presence of “ghost employees” in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, which Pelaez then headed.

In late March, Pelaez sought to have the graft cases dismissed before trial, but the Sandiganbayan rejected his attempt.

In denying the plea, the court emphasized that Pelaez’s motion for leave to file a demurrer to evidence would merely cause “delay in the proceedings.”

Had the request been granted, Pelaez could have challenged the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence—a move that, if successful, might have led to his acquittal.

Still, Pelaez filed another motion, urging the anti-graft court to reverse its March ruling.

He argued that the prosecution's evidence was "weak" and cited "inconsistencies" in the testimonies and judicial affidavits of the three casual employees-turned-witnesses—Antonio Rodriguez, Ricky Pagaran, and Lowell Zarate.

Rodriguez, Pagaran, and Zarate testified that they were ordered to render work at Pelaez’s private properties, while their salaries, according to prosecutors, were drawn from the provincial government’s payroll.

In junking Pelaez's latest petition, the Sandiganbayan disputed his objections to the witnesses’ testimonies, pointing out that they were not even included in the prosecution’s formal offer of evidence.

"The rest of accused Pelaez's arguments are a mere reiteration or rehash of those in his motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence and demurrer to evidence. It is unnecessary to discuss them anew," the court ruled.

"In fine, accused Pelaez failed to convince this court that the reversal of the assailed resolution is warranted," it added.