Sandiganbayan affirms denial of Pasay judge’s bid to junk bribery case

MANILA, Philippines — The Sandiganbayan Sixth Division has affirmed its denial of a bid by a Pasay City Regional Trial Court judge to junk his bribery case.

Pasay Regional Trial Court Branch 108 Judge Alberto Cansino and court interpreter Mariejoy Pangan Lagman were indicted for allegedly accepting P6 million in exchange for a favorable decision in a civil case on May 23, 2024, according to the case information by the Office of the Ombudsman.

In a 25-page resolution promulgated on Sept. 30, the Sixth Division junked Cansino’s instant Motion for Reconsideration Ad Cautelam.

Article continues after this advertisement

This motion seeks to appeal the court’s denial of his motion for consideration of his motion to quash or his bid to junk the case.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

“Insofar as his motion to quash is concerned, accused Cansino’s instant Motion for Reconsideration Ad Cautelam is already his second motion for reconsideration,” the court said. \

“But even on the merits, the instant Motion for Reconsideration Ad Cautelam should still be denied.”

Cansino argued that his case should be dismissed due to questions about the validity of the Ombudsman’s Review Resolution.

The defendant said the investigators failed to establish the required quantum of prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty to conviction.

Article continues after this advertisement

The anti-graft court, however, said it has jurisdiction or authority to review and reverse the Review Resolution.

“Accused Cansino must resort to the proper remedy, which is to file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court,” the court said.

Article continues after this advertisement

Cansino also pointed out that the Department of Justice (DOJ) had a resolution recommending the dismissal of the complaint against him and Lagman.

The court, however, said it conducted its “independent evaluation” of the Review Resolution and its attached supporting evidence, in which it found sufficient grounds exist for the finding of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest against Cansino and Lagman.

“Moreover, that the DOJ arrived at a conclusion different from the Ombudsman’s is of no moment,” according to the court, noting that the Office of the Ombudsman has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. 

“In the exercise of such primary jurisdiction, the Office of the Ombudsman may take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of the government, the investigation of such cases,” it continued.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

“Thus, without going into the merits, it was well within the Ombudsman’s discretion to disapprove the said DOJ Resolution.” /gsg