The Office of the Special Prosecutor has asked the Sandiganbayan Fourth Division to deny for lack of merit the omnibus motion for reconsideration and to cancel/defer arraignment and further proceedings filed by Bacolod Mayor Monico Puentevella.

In its opposition dated April 14, 2015, the Prosecution said Puentevella's motion is merely asking the Honorable Court to reconsider the scheduling of the case for his arraignment, but not necessarily the denial of his motion for reconsideration.

The SandiganBayan Fourth Division had earlier scheduled the arraignment of Puentevella on April 15, and has reset it to May 14, 2015 at 8:30 a.m. pending the submission of the Prosecution of its comment/opposition to the mayor's omnibus resolution.

The Prosecution, in its opposition, also said that “Accused Puentevella's ululations in support of the instant motion are bereft of even an iota of merit to warrant consideration by this Honorable Court”.

It also said that “Accused Puentevella miserably failed to specifically pinpoint any error he perceived to have been committed by the Honorable Court in issuing the assailed Resolutions”.

Furthermore, it also said “No legal justification exists for further deferment of the instant case considering not only the absence of any TRO or writ of preliminary injunction issued…”

Earlier, the lawyers of Puentevella had announced that the Sandiganbayan had granted the motion he filed and moved to May 14 the arraignment set for April 15, on the complaint filed against him and two others for the questionable purchase of about P26 million worth of Information Technology Package with his Priority Development Assistance Fund when he was yet congressman of Bacolod.

The Sandiganbayan also submitted for resolution the second motion for reconsideration dated April 1, filed by Jessie Garcia of Merryland Publishing Corporation.

The Prosecution said that in his motion, Puentevella finds no fault to his ratiocination by the Honorable Court and even accepted the correctness of its observation.

“It is the contention of Puentevella that the petition for certiorari now pending before the Supreme Court is not the ‘petition' being referred to in Section 7, Rule 65, and that the case is not the ‘principal case' being contemplated, yet he is asking this Court to defer or suspend further proceedings,” it said.

The deferment of further proceedings in the case despite absence, in the first place, of any petition for certiorari involving this Honorable Court's issuance might open its members to an administrative charge, which the prosecution cannot allow to happen, it added.

Meanwhile, former City Legal Officer Joselito Bayatan yesterday said the order of the Sandiganbayan will refute the false claims of Puentevella that May 14 will yet be the date for oral argument on his motion to suspend his arraignment.

Bayatan said the truth is that May 14 is the date of his arraignment as moved from April 15.

This is unusual because if a person thinks he is innocent, he will not delay the proceedings, much less his arraignment. He will not resort to many maneuvers to delay his arraignment. The sooner the proceedings like the arraignment, begin, the better for an innocent man, but not for the guilty, he said.* CGS

back to top