MANILA, Philippines – The anti-graft court has allowed prosecutors to amend the technical malversation charge against former Surigao del Norte governor and now Representative Francisco Matugas and another capitol official, rejecting their bid to block the revised case.

The 3rd Division of the Sandiganbayan denied Matugas and former provincial budget officer Ma. Myrla Padayhag’s joint opposition, which argued the amended information was defective after prosecutors sought to add details to the original charge filed on February 9.

The March 5 ruling, written by Associate Justice Fritz Bryn Anthony delos Santos and concurred in by Associate Justices Karl Miranda and Ronald Moreno, stated that the prosecution may amend the information because neither accused has undergone full arraignment.

Citing Section 14, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the court noted Padayhag’s arraignment did not proceed after she filed a motion to quash, while Matugas was only conditionally arraigned on November 25, 2025 as a requirement for his request to travel abroad.

Prosecutors alleged in the amended information, that Matugas and Padayhag conspired to “unlawfully and feloniously divert” P60 million in public funds from their intended purpose under a 2021 appropriation ordinance No from March to June 2022.

They alleged that P20 million meant for the Awareness Building Panghingusgan, Pangandaman, Kabataan sa Katalagman (2P2K) Program was reallocated and released to the Department of Education in Surigao del Norte for the procurement of supplementary reading materials on disaster risk reduction management, climate change adaptation, and/or education in emergencies.

Prosecutors from the Office of the Ombudsman also alleged that another P37 million intended for a medical aid program with Southern Philippines Medical Center and Vicente Sotto Memorial Medical Center, as well as health and social welfare services, was funneled to a different expense item and ended up with the DepEd-Surigao del Norte and Siargao divisions for the procurement of “supplementary reading, learning, and other instructional materials.”

In its resolution, ​the Sandiganbayan said an accused who is only conditionally arraigned under a charge that is later amended can no longer invoke protection against double jeopardy and must be arraigned again under the revised information.

It also said prosecutors have the sole authority to amend the charge, and courts should not interfere unless there is clear grave abuse of discretion. Part of its resolution read that “courts should not interfere with the Ombudsman’s exercise of its constitutional mandate, as it is an executive function which must be respected consistent with the principle of separation of powers.” 

The anti-graft court added that before arraignment, the accused’s rights are not yet affected because they have not formally been informed of the charges. It said only after arraignment are substantial changes to the complaint or information no longer allowed. – Rappler.com