U.S. lawyers object to Cabrera’s acquittal motion

Federal prosecutors objected to a judgment of acquittal being sought by former Finance Secretary Antonio R. Cabrera following his conviction on corruption charges, arguing that the bases for the motion are without merit.

In a legal brief filed yesterday in the U.S. District Court, they claimed the post-verdict motion should be denied as it was filed later than the date provided under court regulations and hence it lacks jurisdiction to decide.

But even if the motion was timely filed, the court should reject it because the two arguments raised by the defense were erroneous, according to lead prosecutor Assistant District Attorney Kevin A. Seely.

The embattled ex-CNMI official, through his lawyer Joseph A. Arriola, filed on November 6 the motion seeking reversal of the guilty verdict on two counts of corruption on grounds that the federal court does not have jurisdiction on the case.

The local court is the proper venue to prosecute the case that involved $5,840.73 in typhoon differential pay as well as the $20,000 advance payment for a Manila trip, he said in his petition.

Mr. Cabrera, 40, was convicted by a jury on three counts of theft concerning programs receiving federal funds and acquitted on two bribery charges that stemmed from incidents between November and December 1996 while he was the secretary of the Department of Finance.

He could face up to 30 years imprisonment, plus fines and restitution, as punishment for the crime. District Judge Alex R. Munson has set his sentencing on February 6 next year.

The case, however, is scheduled to be heard again on Dec. 7 when the prosecution and the defense argue before the judge on the motion filed by Mr. Cabrera.

In his opposition, Mr. Seely pointed out the motion should have been filed within seven days from the date of conviction which came on Oct. 25. The petition was brought eight business days later on Nov. 6.

Granting it was filed on time, Mr. Cabrera must not be acquitted just the same since the evidence presented at the trial last month satisfied elements of the crime for which he was accused, he said.

Likewise, his argument that the minimum statutory dollar requirement of $5,000 was complied with because the typhoon differential pay the defendant got was made in a lump-sum payment, added Mr. Seely.

The defense has claimed elements of Title 18 of the U.S. Code 666 (a)(1)(A) — the basis for the charges –were not applicable since it exempts wages, fees or other compensation or expenses paid or reimbursed in the usual course of business, which covered the differential pay and the travel advances received by Mr. Cabrera.

Mr. Seely cited a similar U.S. case in which the defendant was convicted for altering time sheets, noting Mr. Cabrera’s case was even more fraudulent since he did not only alter overtime sheets, “but he made them up entirely.”

The $20,000 advance for a Manila trip was “stolen,” he added, and was neither bona fide nor obtained in the usual course of business.