MANILA, Philippines – The graft court Sandiganbayan has been requested to recall the arrest warrant it issued against a former official of the Department of Finance (DoF) in connection with the P73 million tax credit certificates’ scam.

In his motion filed last month, Uldarico Andutan Jr., lawyer and former deputy director of the DoF’s One-Stop Shop Inter-Agency Tax Credit and Duty Drawback Center, also sought from the graft court to “properly and judiciously determine probable cause’’ in the plunder case lodged against him by the Office of the Ombudsman.

Andutan was arrested early last month in Iloilo City but had to be confined in a hospital when his blood pressure shot up after the arrest. He has been turned over to the Quezon City jail on orders of the Sandiganbayan.

Records showed that Andutan had been a subject of repeated investigations by the Office of the Ombudsman. He had been cleared of plunder charges in all the investigations.

The same records showed that the only case filed against Andutan was a charge of ill-gotten wealth for alleged falsification of his statement of assets, liabilities and networth (SALN) where he reportedly failed to state that he had a P90,000 deposit in a bank.

Also, Andutan said that the law that created the Sandiganbayan provides that any order, resolution, or decision of the anti-graft court must be a collegial act of the three members of a division.

Andutan also claimed the possibility that no careful and personal evaluation of the information and records of the preliminary investigation were made either by the Chairman or the Division.

“It was physically impossible for the members of the Sandiganbayan’s First division, and even for the late Justice Norberto Geraldez to act with careful and personal evaluation of the plunder case since the case was transferred to the First division only after the 1:30 p.m. raffle on April 3, 2009 and the case consisted of two volumes with a total of 1,099 pages,’’ Andutan said.

“Thus, the April 3, 2009 resolution does not satisfy the requirements of a proper judicial determination of probable cause. Pending a proper determination by the court acting as a collegial body of whether or not probable cause exists, the warrant of arrest issued on April 3, 2009 should be recalled and set aside,” he stressed.

“...it appears that the Honorable Court could not have made a proper personal determination of whether probable cause exists for the issuance of a warrant of arrest when the April 3, 2009 Resolution was issued.’’

“.....the members of the division did not act as a collegial body, and did not make a personal determination of whether probable cause exists for the issuance of a warrant of arrest,’’ he said.