Prosecutors block Clavel’s motion vs arrest warrant

CEBU, Philippines - Assistant Special Prosecutor Bienvenida Gruta filed an opposition to the motion filed by former congresswoman Clavel Asas-Martinez and others who asked the Sandiganbayan to defer the issuance of the warrant of arrest against them.

“It is now very clear that the ground used by the accused for their present motion is flimsy,” stated Gruta.

Martinez and others were charged for a violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019 otherwise known as anti-graft and corrupt practices act and malversation of public funds over the alleged misuse of her Priority Development Assistance Fund or pork barrel.

In her opposition, Gruta asked the anti-graft court to issue the warrant of arrest against the respondents as early as possible and to schedule the arraignment of the case. She said the grounds of the respondents in filing the said motion “was flimsy, non-existent and no leg to stand on.”

Other named respondents were the son of Clavel, former Bogo City Mayor Celestino “Tining” Marinez III, her daughter-former Girl Scouts of the Philippines (GSP) treasurer Ma. Cielo Martinez, municipal treasurer Rhett Minguez, municipal accountant Cresencio Verdida, bookkeeper Rhodariza Kilantang and GSP Cebu Council cashier Julieta Quino.

The respondents asked the Sandiganbayan to defer the issuance of the warrant, citing their motion for reconsideration was still pending before the Office of the Ombudsman. Gruta, however, claimed that the ground mentioned by the respondents cannot hold the issuance of the warrant and is not a valid ground.

Meanwhile, Associate Justices Teresita Diaz-Baldos, Napoleon Inoturan and Oscar Herrera also gave the defense ten days to file their reply based on the opposition of the prosecution.

The respondents were charged for the alleged P10 million-allocation to the GSP to be used for anti-drug illegal campaign, which was allegedly deposited in Clavel’s personal bank account.

The anti-graft office said that although the amount was returned to the public, the respondents are still liable.

“It still does not discount the fact that public funds were embezzled and appropriated for personal use,” the case reads.

The anti-graft office recommended P40,000 bail for anti-graft case while the anti-graft office recommended  no bail for malversation.  (FREEMAN)