THE Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 27 in Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu has approved bail of ₱1 million for controversial contractor Sarah Discaya, who faces charges of malversation of public funds and violation of the anti-graft law.
The case stems from allegations involving a supposed ghost infrastructure project in Malita, Davao Occidental. Along with Discaya, the court also approved bail for Czar Ryan Ubungen, finance officer of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) in Davao Occidental, setting his bond at ₱300,000.
In its 15‑page resolution, Presiding Judge Nelson Leyco explained that the prosecution had not yet presented sufficient evidence to justify keeping the two suspects in detention. The court noted that no witness had personally testified regarding Discaya’s direct involvement in the questioned project.
“At this point in time, the pieces of evidence highlighted by the prosecution are not yet enough to prove Discaya’s instrumental participation in committing the criminal act of falsifying the documents or conspiring with the other accused,” the ruling stated, adding that she must be afforded her constitutional right to bail while the main trial is ongoing. The court also observed that a former employee of St. Timothy Construction, presented as a witness, admitted to having no personal knowledge of Discaya’s role in the transactions.
However, the court took a different stance on the other respondents, denying the bail petitions of eight co‑accused. These include other DPWH officials and Maria Roma Rimando, executive officer of St. Timothy Construction. The judge ruled that the evidence against this group was strong enough to show they had signed false certifications and supporting documents. Ubungen’s case was distinguished, the court said, since the only basis linking him to the crime was his signature on disbursement vouchers. It was also noted that while Discaya is released on bail in this case, she faces another non‑bailable complaint in Bulacan province over an alleged ₱53.9‑million ghost project in Calumpit.
Following the decision, legal teams for both sides indicated their next steps. Discaya’s legal representative declined to issue a comment, while the lawyers representing the denied respondents said they respect the ruling but will explore all available remedies. “We can still file a motion for reconsideration and if it’s denied, a possible petition for certiorari,” said defense counsel Atty. Joseph Randi Torregosa. He added that the denial was a temporary setback and that they remain confident in the evidence they will present once the full trial begins.
metrosundaily
