By Ade S. Fajardo

As of press time, the Sandiganbayan has denied the motions to quash in the criminal indictment for plunder against Senator Rodante Marcoleta, et al.

Warrants of arrest are out and have been reported to have been duly served.

Bail is not a matter of right in plunder cases.

Bail may be denied if the evidence of guilt is strong.

Marcoleta is charged with three others. They are former Anak Kalusugan Representative Mike Defensor, and businessmen Aristotle Viray and Joseph Espiritu.

***

In November last year, Marcoleta admitted in a televised interview that he received millions of pesos in donations for his Senate bid.

The amount was deliberately omitted in his Statement of Contributions and Expenditures (SOCE) because, as the senator himself admitted, the donors did not want him to disclose their names.

Unfortunately, the SOCE is a declaration required by law and it must be truthful. This non-declaration became the basis of the complaints filed against Marcoleta before the Office of the Ombudsman.

***

Marcoleta’s case stood out because he was the only one who reported no campaign donations in his SOCE.

This taxes credulity. Even local candidates declare contributions because running a political campaign is not cheap.

Yet he escaped disqualification as a winning candidate.

The Comelec cleared Marcoleta of violating the Omnibus Election Code, on the defense that he received the money before the election period.

Comelec Chairman George Garcia relied on a Supreme Court decision which says that a candidate is liable for election offenses only upon the start of the campaign period.

***

“We recognize this case has stirred intense public debate, and we respect every citizen’s right to an opinion, to rally and to demand accountability, including from us,” said the Ombudsman in a statement.

The Ombudsman further said that the evidence against Marcoleta and his co-accused “leaves our office no discretion to look away.”

The facts have not been disputed.

Senator Marcoleta himself “publicly confirmed” receiving the money.

This admission was even made official when it became part of the records of Comelec.

***

Is there need for a money trail to prove this crime of plunder?

Marcoleta’s problem is that he painted himself into a corner when he admitted that he received money from “friends.”

In his enthusiasm to have the Comelec case dismissed, he committed egregious errors that the Ombudsman seemed only too happy to pounce upon.

***

In indirect bribery, said to be the predicate offense for plunder in this case, the public officer concerned does not need to do any particular act or even promise to do an act.

It is enough that he accepts gifts offered to him by reason of his office.

Marcoleta was an incumbent congressman, hence a public officer, when he accepted money from his co-accused.

The Ombudsman noted that in his December 2025 SALN, Marcoleta declared only cash and savings amounting to P16.7 million.

It will be hard to explain how P75 million was spent in his election campaign without reflecting the donation in his SOCE./WDJ