MANILA - The Sandiganbayan Special 6th Division upheld the decision to deny the motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence of Camarines Sur 2nd District Rep. LRay Villafuerte.

According to the Revised Rules of Court, without a leave of court, Villafuerte may still file a demurrer to evidence but if it is denied, his right to present his own evidence is deemed waived and the court will submit the cases for judgment.

Villafuerte is facing 3 counts of graft as provincial governor of Camarines Sur for the procurement of fuel worth P20 million from Petro Naga without public bidding in 2010.

• Sandiganbayan suspends LRay Villafuerte over graft
• CamSur Rep. Villafuerte charged with another graft case at Sandiganbayan

Co-accused Petron Naga owner Jeffrey Lo’s motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.

“The accused are given five days from receipt of this resolution to file their respective manifestations, by personal service or through courier, to inform this court whether they are filing their demurrer to evidence without leave of court,” the anti-graft court said in the decision promulgated on September 25, 2018.

The resolution was penned by division Chairperson Sarah Jane Fernandez, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Karl Miranda, Reynaldo Cruz and Bayani Jacinto.

Associate Justice Kevin Narce Vivero dissented from the ruling.

The majority of the justices said the arguments raised by Villafuerte and Lo in their motions for reconsideration did not provide any justification for the court to overturn its ruling.

Villafuerte said he was deprived of his right to due process as the resolution did not state the factual and legal bases of the ruling, citing a constitutional provision that decisions should be rendered with facts and law on which they are based.

“From a reading of the aforequoted provision, it is clear that it applies only to decisions or judgments on the merits which completely dispose of the case. Resolutions of motions need only state clearly and distinctly the reasons therefor,” the court said.

The court also stressed that they did not prematurely rule on the demurrers to evidence of the accused as they only made an “initial assessment” of the prosecution’s evidence for the purposes of determining if they should be granted leave of court.