ANTONIO M. SUBA, PETITIONER, VS.

SANDIGANBAYAN FIRST DIVISION AND

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 235418, March 03, 2021]

A POSITION PAPER

Presented to
Ms. Faye Lorraine P. Mina, MPA, M.I.P
Political Science Department
College of Arts and Sciences
University of the Visayas
Cebu City

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements of the Course
Political Science 2210 – Philippine Public Administration

RYD L. NOGUERRA

April 2023
 Introduction

The case of Antonio M. Suba, petitioner, versus Sandiganbayan First Division and
People of the Philippines, respondents, involves allegations of corruption and misuse of
public funds. This position paper aims to analyze the arguments of both parties and
provide a recommendation for the resolution of the case.

Background

The petitioner, Antonio M. Suba, was a former congressman of the 2nd District of
Pangasinan. He was charged with four counts of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act
No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The charges stemmed from his
alleged misuse of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or pork barrel funds
allocated to his district during his term as congressman. The respondent, People of the
Philippines, argued that Suba had conspired with certain individuals and entities to
embezzle the funds.

Arguments

The petitioner argued that the charges against him were based on mere
speculation and conjecture. He claimed that he had no knowledge of any irregularities in
the allocation and disbursement of the PDAF funds. He further argued that the evidence
presented by the prosecution was insufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.

The respondent, People of the Philippines, argued that Suba had conspired with
certain individuals and entities to embezzle the PDAF funds. They presented evidence to
show that Suba had authorized the release of funds to non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) that were found to be fake or non-existent. The prosecution also alleged that the
petitioner had received kickbacks from these NGOs in exchange for facilitating the
release of funds.

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented, it is clear that there was a conspiracy to

embezzle the PDAF funds. While it may be difficult to prove the direct involvement of the
petitioner in the embezzlement, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that he was
aware of the irregularities and may have facilitated the release of funds to fake NGOs.

Therefore, it is recommended that the Sandiganbayan First Division find the

petitioner guilty of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act. The court should impose the appropriate penalty and require
the petitioner to restitute the amount embezzled to the government. This decision will
serve as a warning to public officials that they will be held accountable for any misuse of
public funds.