SC clears way for graft case vs Discaya over P96.5-M ‘ghost’ flood project

The Supreme Court (SC) has cleared the way for the full prosecution of businesswoman Cezarah “Sarah” Rowena Discaya over an alleged P96.5-million flood control project in Davao Occidental.

In a resolution dated 8 April 2026, the SC dismissed Discaya’s petition and ruled that her challenge to the preliminary investigation had become moot after formal charges were already filed.

The decision effectively allows the criminal proceedings, centered on allegations of a “ghost” infrastructure project, to proceed without judicial interference at this stage.

Discaya, along with company president Maria Roma Rimando and eight officials from the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Davao Occidental District Engineering Office, is currently detained in Cebu following the issuance of arrest warrants by a court in Lapu-Lapu City.

The charges stem from a complaint filed by Public Works Secretary Vince Dizon, who alleged that the government paid the full contract amount for a flood control project that was either incomplete or never implemented.

The concrete revetment project in Culaman, Jose Abad Santos, was awarded to St. Timothy Construction Corporation, a firm owned by Discaya. Authorities said the project may have existed only on paper despite the release of P96.5 million in public funds.

The Office of the Ombudsman found probable cause to charge the respondents with violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019), particularly Section 3(e), as well as malversation through falsification of public documents.

In its ruling, the high court underscored that determining probable cause during preliminary investigations falls solely within the authority of prosecutors.

It added that courts typically refrain from intervening unless there is clear evidence of grave abuse of discretion—such as constitutional violations or lack of jurisdiction—which were not established in this case.

The Court also noted that the Ombudsman’s findings were backed by substantial evidence, reinforcing the validity of the charges now pending before the trial court.