The Sandiganbayan has ruled that former congressman Zaldy Co, who faces charges of graft and non-bailable malversation of public funds, is not entitled to any judicial relief while he remains a fugitive from justice.
In its decision, the anti-graft court denied Co’s appeal to reconsider both the cancellation of his passport and the declaration that he is a fugitive.
“It is undisputed that accused Co remains beyond the reach of the court. He has not voluntarily surrendered or submitted to arrest. Thus, the court maintains that accused Co lacks the requisite legal standing to invoke the court’s processes as long as he remains a fugitive,” the Sandiganbayan stated.
Earlier, the Supreme Court (SC) ruled that fugitives from justice are persons who evade criminal prosecution before the courts and those who flee after conviction to avoid the punishment imposed on them.
The SC stressed that fugitives from justice are barred from seeking judicial relief unless they voluntarily surrender.
The Sandiganbayan said it finds it proper and imperative to apply the doctrine to accused Co, who continues to evade arrest and remains beyond the court’s jurisdiction.
“His status renders him disentitled to seek affirmative relief, including the instant Urgent Motion for Reconsideration,” it also said.
It ruled: “In fine, accused Co’s claimed denial of due process cannot be entertained. Being a fugitive from justice, accused Co is without standing to seek affirmative relief from this court. His Urgent Motion for Reconsideration, and the ancillary reliefs prayed for therein, must therefore fail.”
In a resolution dated Jan. 8, 2026, the anti-graft court denied the motion for reconsideration filed by Rondain & Mendiola as counsel for Co.
The motion stated that Co was surprised to receive the Dec. 10, 2025 resolution of the court, which cancelled his passport because of his “deliberate refusal to submit to the lawful authority of the court.”
It alleged that Co was not afforded the opportunity to comment or oppose the resolution, and argued that the court was misled into believing that he did not file a comment or opposition.
The truth, the lawyers said, was that the prosecution deliberately delayed in providing Co with a copy of the motion in order to make it look like he did not file any comment.
But the Sandiganbayan found the arguments without merit. (Czarina Ong Ki)
