PRESIDENTIAL adviser on environmental protection Nereus Acosta challenged the evidence of the Office of the Ombudsman presented in his graft cases, saying that they are weak and could not sustain a guilty verdict.

In a 72-page demurrer to evidence, the former Bukidnon province representative stipulated that even the prosecution admitted the weakness of their evidence.

They said that after presenting six witnesses, the fiscals asked the Sandiganbayan Fourth Division to entertain Nemia Bornidor, Acosta’s aunt and one of the accused, to be a state witness who later dropped the plan.

The Office of the Ombudsman earlier wanted Bornidor to be a state witness as she would purportedly bolster the evidence against Acosta as “there is no other direct evidence” to prove the corruption charges against the secretary.

In reviewing the prosecution’s evidence, the defense said that the testimonies of Mayor Amado Noble of Talakag, Bukidnon could not be relied upon because it is “a web of contrived facts and blatant lies” made against Acosta who is his political opponent.

The state auditor who also stepped up in the stand, Carlo Matias, also admitted that the controversial solar tunnel dryer was used for the members of Binhi, Acosta’s enterprise, under the first district of Bukidnon.

Through defense lawyer Raymond Fortun, the auditor was found to have failed to determine that Binhi is a non-profit, non-stock organization despite having micro-financing programs for cash-strapped women.

Another state auditor, Arnulfo Lancin, agreed that Binhi was entitled to Acosta’s priority development assistance fund as it had the “imprimatur” of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM).

The presidential adviser pressed that there was no injury made against the government because the prosecution merely relied on the receipt of the Acosta-run Bu-kidnon Vegetable Producers Cooperative (BVPC).

“The prosecution also imputes that undue injury was caused by BVPC because public funds were used for private purpose. However, similar with Binhi, BVPC’s activities catered to the public and thus meet the requirement of public purpose,” the demurrer read.

The defense raised that when P5.5 million was released from the pork barrel of Acosta to BVPC, they were used to “finance the projects of BVPC such as livelihood assistance to its members.”

“[The P5.5 million] was for public use and indeed was used to benefit the public, directly or indirectly. It thus was for a public purpose,” Acosta motioned.

His lawyers added that since the money was put into good use, there is no missing cash and no injury to the government, including the approval of DBM on the P5.5-million special allotment release order.

“The scant evidence submitted by the prosecution casts serious doubts about his guilt . . . It is respectfully prayed that the information filed against the accused be dismissed in its entirety for insufficiency of evidence,” the motion read.