The Sandiganbayan has denied the motions of North Cotabato Rep. Nancy A. Catamco and her six-co-defendants for the dismissal of the graft and malversation charges against them.
The antigraft court’s Sixth Division, in a 10-page resolution issued on Oct. 12, denied separate motions for reconsideration filed by the Catamco and her co-accused that sought the reversal of the court’s Aug. 7, 2018 resolution to first affirm the validity of the charges against them.
Catamco’s co-accused in the two counts of malversation are her former husband, Pompey Perez, and former Mayor Edgar Rama of Poro, Cebu.
Poro Vice Mayor Ronald Carcellar and Sangguniang Bayan Kagawads Gorgonita Gonzales, Sergio Zurita, Nilo Gorgonio, Gregorio Dorog, and William Surbano were included in the lone graft case.
The Ombudsman accused them of “conspiracy to defraud the municipal government of Poro with the anomalous purchase of P5 million worth of Vitacrop liquid organic fertilizer” in 2004.
At the time, Catamco was not yet a public official and was going by the name “Nancy Perez.”
Ombudsman prosecutors alleged that the transaction was irregular due to lack of public bidding and the supplier, Perzebros Co. represented by the Perezes, was ineligible being barely two-months-old at the time of the transaction.
Investigators also hinted overpricing in the transaction, noting that the town was made to pay P1,500 per bottle of fertilizer when the actual price was supposedly only P408 per bottle or an overprice of P1,092 per bottle.
In her appeal, Catamco claimed that there was unreasonable delay of over seven years in the conduct of fact-finding investigation while the preliminary investigation took another five years.
She said that during those years, she was unaware of an ongoing investigation, and so she was unable to gather and preserve evidence crucial to her defense.
She added that she could no longer locate the manufacturer of Vitacrop liquid fertilizer or any of its officers.
Perez also invoked his right to speedy disposition of cases.
He said it was impossible for him to have conspired with the other defendants pointing to lack of probable cause.
He also claimed that his being a partner of Perzebros did not constitute enough ground to include him as a respondent.
