The Sandiganbayan has upheld the conviction of Pangkabuhayan Foundation Inc. (PFI) president Petronila Balmaceda for malversation involving P2.4 million in Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) allocations in 2008.

In a resolution issued on 1 September, the anti-graft court’s Fifth Division denied Balmaceda’s motion for reconsideration, saying her arguments merely repeated matters already raised and resolved during the proceedings.

The court said the issues had been “exhaustively considered” and found no compelling reason to reverse its 30 June decision.

“The court finds no new substantial argument or matter in Balmaceda’s Motion for Reconsideration that would warrant the modification, much less the reversal, of the assailed Decision,” the resolution read.

Balmaceda’s lawyers primarily challenged the credibility of prosecution witness Ana Rosario Caniban, who testified about the PFI president’s participation in the transactions involved in the case.

The defense argued that Balmaceda could not have withdrawn the amount on 9 October 2008 because her passport showed she was outside the country from 12 September to 20 October that year.

The Sandiganbayan, however, ruled that the question of whether Balmaceda personally withdrew the money on that date did not render Caniban’s testimony “unworthy of belief” regarding her processing of documents for PFI.

It added that the discrepancy in dates did not negate Caniban’s identification of Balmaceda’s signatures on documents related to the transactions.

“Viewed in their totality, the evidence established Balmaceda’s participation in the conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt,” the court said.

Citing the Supreme Court ruling in Mendoza-Ong v. Sandiganbayan, the Fifth Division said a motion for reconsideration may be summarily denied when it merely reiterates arguments already considered by the court.

“Balmaceda’s Motion for Reconsideration presents precisely such a circumstance. Having raised no substantial argument or new matter sufficient to disturb the court’s findings and conclusions in the assailed Decision, the motion must be denied,” it said.