Sandigan delays Rep. Ang arraignment



The City of Manila suspended afternoon classes at all levels in public and private schools on Thursday, 13 August, as…

With college graduates accounting for a significant share of unemployed Filipinos, Enderun Colleges is urging its Class…

The Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp. (PAGCOR) has released an initial P65.6 million worth of food and non-food…

The United States has funded a new community reporting center in Palawan aimed at helping Filipino fishermen report…

The Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) has backed the Anti-Red Tape Authority’s intensified…
The Sandiganbayan Second Division on Monday deferred the arraignment of Uswag Ilonggo Partylist Rep. James “Jojo” Ang Jr. in separate graft cases pending the resolution of motions filed by the defense.
During the hearing, Ang’s counsel, Atty. Luis Vera Cruz, told the anti-graft court that the defense had filed a motion to consolidate the 14 graft charges against the lawmaker and a separate motion to quash the information.
Asked by the justices to justify the request for consolidation, Vera Cruz argued that the cases involved similar allegations and differed only in the projects involved and the corresponding contract amounts.
He reiterated the defense’s motion to quash, arguing that the prosecution failed to allege the essential elements of the offense in the information.
Vera Cruz further argued that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the cases because the information failed to specify the damage allegedly suffered by the government as a result of the transactions.
The cases before the Second Division involve two projects worth P3.4 million and P17 million.
The prosecution, however, argued that the government’s injury arose from the projects themselves, as the charges involve a conflict of interest under Section 3(h) of Republic Act 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Under the law, public officials are prohibited from having a direct or indirect financial interest in any business, contract, or transaction in which they intervene or take part in their official capacity.
Prosecutors argued that the offense does not require proof that government funds were unlawfully taken, but rather that a public official improperly participated in government contracts despite a prohibited financial interest.