.jpg)
The Sandiganbayan’s Sixth Division denied the bid of USWAG ILONGGO party-list Rep. James "Jojo" Ang to consolidate his 14 graft cases involving alleged conflict of interest, which are pending before separate court divisions. 📷༘ Rep. James "Jojo" Ang Jr./Facebook
MANILA — The Sandiganbayan’s Sixth Division denied the bid of USWAG ILONGGO party-list Rep. James "Jojo" Ang to consolidate his 14 graft cases involving alleged conflict of interest, which are pending before separate court divisions.
In his motion, Ang argued that the cases shared common questions of fact and law, and argued that separate proceedings could lead to “different and conflicting resolutions” from the court divisions handling them.
He urged the court to consolidate the cases before its Second Division, which is handling the case with the lowest docket number.
However, the court agreed with prosecution’s argument that the 14 cases stem from separate and distinct Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) contracts awarded to Allencon Development Corporation, where Ang was allegedly a stockholder, to provide services for different project locations.
The court, chaired by Associate Justice Sarah Jane Fernandez, noted that under Rule XIII, Section 4(b) of the 2018 Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan, the consolidation of cases is discretionary rather than mandatory.
It cited the Supreme Court ruling in Neri v. Sandiganbayan, which noted that consolidation is a procedural tool used to expedite trials, but it must be refused if it exposes parties to unrelated testimonies and complicates the proceedings.
"Although the said cases appear to be similar in nature, it is undeniable that each case involves a project separate and distinct from the others," read the resolution promulgated on Monday.
"Thus, it is improbable that there will be conflicting rulings on factual matters,” it added.
The court further said that merging the trials would defeat the purpose of speed and efficiency.
"If the cases are consolidated, instead of deciding the case immediately after the parties present their respective evidence insofar as a specific project is concerned, the court must allow the parties to present evidence as to all concerned projects, and will have to consider more documentary exhibits and witness testimonies before deciding the cases," the court said.
The court’s Sixth Division also denied Ang’s motion to quash the criminal information charging him with graft.
RELATED VIDEOS