The Sandiganbayan has denied the Ombudsman’s petition to reverse its decision that absolved former Mexico, Pampanga Mayor Teddy Tumang and seven others of multiple counts of graft and malversation, accusing the court of committing a grave abuse of discretion.
Tumang and his co-accused were acquitted of 64 graft charges and seven counts of malversation of public funds, all linked to alleged anomalies in the procurement of base coarse and other construction materials in 2009 and 2010.
Their exoneration comes after the Sandiganbayan, in September, granted their motion for reconsideration, ruling that the prosecution failed to present enough evidence to prove that the accused committed offenses — such as misappropriation of public funds — that lie at the heart of the graft and malversation charges.
The prosecution, however, argued that the Sandiganbayan erred in finding that the essential elements of graft and malversation were non-existent, and that the findings were “gross misapprehension of facts” which are “unfounded, speculative or arbitrary,” thus, amounting to “grave abuse of discretion.”
The Sandiganbayan, on the contrary, stood firm in its decision that the prosecution’s evidence was “insufficient to support a judgment of conviction.” Furthermore, it noted that no less than the Supreme Court ruled that they did not “commit gross misapprehension of facts” when it affirmed the dismissal of the charges against Tumang and his co-accused in April.
To recall, the Sandiganbayan first cleared Tumang and businessman William Colins — the proprietor of Buyu Trading — in June 2024 due to inordinate delay.
Tumang and Colis argued that it took nearly 17 years for the Ombudsman to conclude its preliminary investigation from the year that the alleged acts were committed in 2007, which jeopardized their constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases.
The case stemmed from the issuance of several resolutions by the Mexico municipal government for the immediate purchase of base course and other materials, notwithstanding that they were not considered regular office supplies under the Government Procurement Reform Act (RA 9184).
The Ombudsman stated that the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) had issued a resolution recommending the use of “shopping,” an alternative procurement method, for purchasing construction materials from Buyu Trading.
The Ombudsman found that the resolutions were “highly irregular” because the purchase requests had not yet been issued at the time.
Prosecutors alleged that Tumang and his co-accused showed clear favoritism by awarding all supply contracts to Buyu Trading, despite the presence of several other competing firms.
“[The prosecution] failed to persuade the court that the accused had malicious and deliberate intent to bestow unwarranted partiality upon Buyu and/or accused Colis,” the Sandiganbayan’s resolution dated 12 December reads.
“Having found no cogent reason to reverse its findings in the assailed resolution, the court must perforce deny the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration,” it added.
Aside from Tumang and Collis, the others acquitted were municipal accountant Perlita Lagman, BAC chair Marlon Maniacup, BAC vice chair Jesus Punzalan, and members Romeo Razon, Lucila Agento and Luz Bondoc.