Caught in the Act? Sandiganbayan Slams Pelaez’s Get-Out-of-Jail Card—What’s His Next Play?

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — March 28, 2025

1. The Scandal Uncovered: Pelaez’s Accused Misuse

Another politician tries—and fails—to dodge accountability through procedural gamesmanship. Former Misamis Oriental Vice Governor Jose Mari Pelaez, slapped with three counts of graft in 2023 under RA 3019, allegedly turned three publicly paid casual employees—Antonio Rodriguez, Ricky Pagaran, and Lowell Zarate—into his personal errand boys, working his private properties in Gingoog and Cagayan de Oro from 2013 to 2015.

His latest move? A motion for leave to file a demurrer to evidence, hoping to toss the case before it even hits trial. The Sandiganbayan’s 6th Division, led by Associate Justice Sarah Jane Fernandez, wasn’t having it, denying the plea on March 21, 2025, with a curt “this just delays things.” Now, Pelaez faces a chessboard where every move could cost him dearly—legally and politically.

2. Legal Showdown: Does Pelaez Stand a Chance?

Substantive Law: Does the Prosecution Have the Goods?

Section 3(e) of RA 3019 is the anti-graft hammer, nailing public officers who give unwarranted benefits with “manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.” Sison v. People (G.R. No. 170339, 2006) lays out the checklist:

(1) Public officer? Check—Pelaez was vice governor.
(2) Official function? Check—he controlled employee assignments.
(3) Unwarranted benefit? Check—employees testified they toiled on his private land, backed by payroll records.
(4) Bad faith? That’s the kicker—direct instructions from Pelaez and his staff scream intent.

His COA defense (“no adverse findings!”) flops hard; Fuentes v. People (G.R. No. 186421, 2012) says audits don’t absolve criminal scheming. The prosecution’s got a prima facie slam dunk—Pelaez’s fingerprints are all over this.

Procedural Gambit: Why the Court Said “No Dice”

Pelaez’s motion for leave under Rule 119, Section 23 was a classic stall tactic—get permission to argue the evidence stinks, then dodge trial if it works. The Sandiganbayan saw through it, citing delay as the dealbreaker. People v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 197953, 2015) backs this: courts can swat demurrers that smell like procrastination unless the prosecution’s case is laughably thin.

Here, employee affidavits and treasurer docs aren’t thin—they’re a brick wall. Fernandez’s ruling keeps the game moving, honoring Article III, Section 16’s speedy trial mandate. Pelaez can still roll the dice without leave, but if he craps out, he’s defenseless—a procedural checkmate.

Ethics Angle: Public Trust? More Like Public Trough

Pelaez’s alleged stunt—turning public employees into private lackeys—spits on Article XI, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution: “Public office is a public trust.” RA 6713, Section 4(a) doubles down, demanding commitment to public interest, not personal estates. Morong Water District v. Office of the Deputy Ombudsman (G.R. No. 116273, 1998) drives it home: public officers can’t moonlight as feudal lords.

If proven, this isn’t just graft—it’s a masterclass in ethical faceplanting. Pelaez’s “but COA didn’t catch me” excuse is a toddler’s tantrum—ignorance isn’t innocence.

3. Power Plays: Will Pelaez’s Dynasty Survive?

Local Dynasties: Misamis Oriental’s Power Play

In Misamis Oriental, where political clans rule like medieval fiefs, Pelaez’s case is a litmus test. His brother, Jeremy Pelaez, currently vice governor, must be sweating—this could taint the family brand. A conviction might crack their grip, but a drawn-out fight could rally loyalists who see this as “persecution.”

Voter sentiment’s the wild card; if Pelaez spins this as a witch hunt, he might limp on. Still, three employees spilling tea on his private projects isn’t a good look for dynasty PR.

Institutional Optics: Sandiganbayan’s Redemption Arc?

The Sandiganbayan’s been the punching bag of judicial dawdling—ex-Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo pegged case delays at 10.2 years in 2014. This swift smackdown signals grit, but it’s a double-edged sword. If the case drags post-ruling, critics will cry “same old story.”

Ascendantly, it’s a win for RA 8249’s anti-graft mandate—showing teeth against a high-flyer like Pelaez could polish the court’s tarnished halo. Yet, with 80% of demurrers failing in graft cases (a rough stat from case trends), this was less brilliance, more inevitability.

National Narrative: Anti-Corruption Theater

Duterte’s “kill corruption” bravado set the stage, but reality’s messier. Pelaez’s case fits the “Aatmanirbhar Pilipinas” self-reliance gospel—clean governance starts local. A conviction would be a feather in the Ombudsman’s cap, but procedural wrangling fuels the “justice delayed, justice denied” chorus.

This isn’t just about Pelaez—it’s a referendum on whether the system can nail big fish or just flounder in the net.

4. High-Stakes Moves: Pelaez’s Options, Prosecution’s Power

For Pelaez

High-Risk Path: File a Demurrer Without Leave
A Hail Mary play for desperate defendants. Rule 119, Section 23 lets him challenge evidence solo, but if denied, he’s toast—no defense allowed. With employee testimonies and payroll stubs, this is like betting your house on a coin toss against a stacked deck. People v. Sandiganbayan (2018) says prima facie is enough—Pelaez’s odds are grim.
Safer Play: Present Evidence
Go to trial, call witnesses, and poke holes in affidavits—maybe argue the work was legit province business. It’s a slog, risking more headlines, but it beats rolling over. He’ll need a silver-tongued lawyer to flip the narrative, though—those employees aren’t retracting without pressure.

For Prosecutors

Crush the Demurrer
If Pelaez swings without leave, hit back hard. Employee accounts plus payroll records meet People v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 233061-62, 2018)’s bar—prima facie is locked. Argue Pelaez’s COA dodge is irrelevant; Fuentes already buried that corpse. This is a layup—don’t fumble it.
Trial Prep
If he fights, sharpen the knives. Cross-examine his witnesses into knots—contradict those employee stories. Dig for texts or orders proving bad faith; Morong Water District loves that flavor. Rebuttal evidence could seal it—make Pelaez’s defense a cautionary tale.

5. Battle Plan: Who Should Do What Now?

To Pelaez: Cut your losses—present evidence, but expect a bruising trial. Your demurrer dream’s a mirage; the evidence isn’t shaky enough. Fight it out, but brace for mud—your dynasty’s watching.
To the Ombudsman: Push for expedited trial to counter ‘justice delayed’ critiques. You’ve got the ammo—don’t let this fester into another decade-long saga. Nail him fast, or the public tunes out.
To the Public: Watch for witness flip-flops; political clans rarely go down without a fight. Those employees might suddenly “forget” details—keep your eyes peeled.

6. The Final Showdown: Who Falls First?

Will this case finally crack Misamis Oriental’s political machine—or just add to the Sandiganbayan’s backlog? Pelaez’s next move is a tightrope walk, and the prosecution’s got a loaded gun. Checkmate’s coming—whose king falls first?

Disclaimer: This is legal jazz, not gospel. It’s all about interpretation, not absolutes. So, listen closely, but don’t take it as the final word.