Sandigan delays Rep. Ang arraignment



The Ombudsman accused Marcoleta of receiving a total of P75 million in alleged donations before the 2025 national…

‘There are questions that he isn’t answering properly.’

Malacañang on Monday said it will investigate allegations that newly appointed acting Health Secretary Jose “Brix”…

A state auditor testifying on the confidential funds of the Office of the Vice President and the Department of…

The Department of Energy (DoE) is moving to reduce the high cost of generating electricity in the country’s remote…
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.