MANILA, Philippines – The anti-graft court Sandiganbayan rejected motions to dismiss a technical malversation case filed in October against former Surigao del Norte governor and representative Francisco Matugas and a provincial accountant.

The Sandiganbayan’s 3rd Division ruled that Matugas and Ma. Myrla Padayhag’s claim – that the complaint did not show the fund realignment was unauthorized – was not enough to dismiss the case.

Matugas, as governor, was accused of diverting P60 million meant for projects in an appropriation ordinance to buy supplementary learning materials and disaster risk-reduction teaching resources.

Matugas served as Surigao del Norte’s governor from 2019 to 2022, while Padayhag handled the province’s accounting operations.

Incidentally, Matugas was also subjected to an investigation by the Office of the Ombudsman, along with seven other lawmakers, over alleged conflicts of interest tied to flood-control contracts awarded to construction firms linked to them or their relatives. 

The investigation followed a November 26 recommendation by the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI) that administrative and criminal charges be filed against so-called “cong-tractors,” who had allegedly secured at least 1,300 government infrastructure projects.

The ICI’s list names Matugas as connected to one of the contractors, Boometrix Development Corporation.

In the technical malversation case, Matugas and Padayhag had argued there was no allegation that they lacked authority to realign provincial government funds. They said whether they had such authority was a factor that could determine the outcome of the case.

But the anti-graft court stated, “Reviewing the elements, lack of authority is not provided. Alleging that the Information is incomplete because it did not state that there was a lack of authority on the part of the accused to realign the funds is incorrect. The Information must only show that the accused has violated all the elements which constitutes the crime he has been charged with.”

The CA added that the information “unmistakably presents all the essential elements and ultimate facts necessary” for the accused to understand the criminal offense they face.

It rejected the defendants’ claim that general authorization could serve as a defense, noting that the diversion of funds “remains illegal regardless of any claimed authorization.” – Rappler.com