Sandiganbayan denies ex-BOC official, businessman's plea

The Sandiganbayan has denied the bid of a former Bureau of Customs official and a businessman to dismiss graft charges filed against them in connection with the anomalous sugar deal amounting over P10 million in 2000.

In a 13-page resolution handed down on 1 April, the anti-graft Fifth Division found the grounds put forth by Benjamin Bongon, ex-auction and cargo disposal chief of the BOC-Port of Cebu, and businessman Roger Ang, in their motions “unpersuasive.”

Bongon and Ang were guilty of a violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019) by the Cebu Regional Trial Court Branch 23 in December 2017.

They, however, got off scot-free on raps of estafa through falsification of public documents in relation to the same transaction.

They filed a motion for reconsideration before the Sandiganbayan to reverse its October 2023 ruling, which affirmed the RTC’s decision.

The graft case against the two accused involves the 28,000 bags of unmanifested imported sugar carried by M/V Affy that the BOC seized in 1999 that was later auctioned in 2000 in an allegedly dubious manner that fallout to refund of P10,859,063 to Ang, the proprietor of Consumer Enterprises, as the winning bidder.

Court records showed that Ang deposited P21 million, equivalent to the price of 28,000 bags.

However, a composite team reported to Bongon that only 13,753 bags of sugar were offloaded from the vessel and subsequently acquired by Ang.

This prompted Ang to refund P10,859,063, corresponding to the surplus of his initial payment of P21,341,600.

The probe later revealed that Bongon colluded with Ang in deliberately misrepresenting the number of bags of refined sugar.

In their motion for reconsideration, Bongon and Ang cited errors in the RTC’s findings, including lack of competent evidence to support the graft conviction, and the decision, they claimed, was merely based on presumption.

However, the Sandiganbayan said there is "no compelling reason to grant appellant’s motion for reconsideration and consider their grounds in support of their motions unpersuasive."

The Sandiganbayan pointed out that Bongon, who is a lawyer, was indeed at fault in the erroneous filing of his appeal before the Court of Appeals, citing the Rules of Court stipulating that "an appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright."

To recall, the two challenged the RTC's ruling by filing a plea before the CA (Cebu City) in hopes of reversing their graft conviction.

The Sandiganbayan, however, said the case falls under their jurisdiction and not in the CA since it involves graft.