Ex-mayor gets up to 27 years, wife 20 years over P18.7-M Amulung fund mess

AMULUNG, Cagayan — A long-running legal battle over the alleged misuse of P18.7 million in municipal funds has reached a decisive point after the Supreme Court reportedly upheld the convictions of former Amulung mayor Nicanor De Leon and his wife, former mayor Pacita De Leon.

The De Leon couple was earlier found guilty by the Sandiganbayan Sixth Division of violating Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and of malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code.

In its 134-page decision promulgated in November 2022, the anti-graft court found that millions of pesos in municipal funds were disbursed between 2002 and 2009 without the required supporting documents and proper authorization.

The case involved the issuance of Land Bank of the Philippines checks without duly approved disbursement vouchers and other required supporting documents.

Based on the Sandiganbayan's findings, transactions involving approximately P16.34 million were linked to Nicanor, while about P2.33 million were attributed to Pacita.

The Sandiganbayan had sentenced Nicanor to imprisonment of up to 27 years, while Pacita faced up to 20 years for the graft and malversation charges. The couple was also perpetually disqualified from holding public office.

The anti-graft court subsequently affirmed its ruling after the couple failed to present new arguments that would warrant reversing their convictions.

In the latest development, regional news reports on August 18, 2026 said the Supreme Court dismissed the couple's appeal and upheld the Sandiganbayan ruling, effectively ending their lengthy legal battle.

The case stemmed from the alleged unauthorized disbursement of municipal funds during the De Leons' respective terms as mayor of Amulung.

Nicanor served as mayor from 1996 to 2007, while Pacita succeeded him and served from 2007 to 2010.

The Supreme Court's reported action brings a significant chapter to a close in the case, which has remained in the courts for years.

The conviction also serves as a reminder that public officials entrusted with government funds can be held accountable when courts find that public money was improperly disbursed.