Sandiganbayan affirms acquittal of Ifugao lawmaker
Published Jun 16, 2018 01:42 pm
Czarina Nicole O. Ong
The Sandiganbayan Fifth Division has affirmed the acquittal of Ifugao Rep. Teddy Baguilat Jr. as it junked the motion for reconsideration filed by the prosecution pleading otherwise.
(MANILA BULLETIN)
Baguilat was earlier cleared of his graft charges after the court granted his motion to dismiss due to the Office of the Ombudsman's delay in the conduct of the preliminary investigation against him.
He was earlier slapped with violations of Section 3(e) and (g) of Republic Act 3019, also known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, for conspiring with private individual Jose Man Singh when he was still the governor of Ifugao.
Baguilat reportedly gave Singh unwarranted benefits when he entered into a contract with him for the purchase of a secondhand Isuzu Wagon Trooper worth P900,000 back in March 2003 without the conduct of a competitive public bidding.
But because the complaint was filed on September 24, 2009 and the case only reached the Sandiganbayan on February 9, 2018, the court dismissed his charges due to inordinate delay.
The prosecution tried to reason that it could not be faulted for the delay, considering that the letter-complaint was filed in 2004 and was endorsed to the COA for appropriate action only in September 2009 when the COA issued its report recommending that the filing of charges against Baguilat be made.
At the same time, the prosecution maintained that the delay is not oppressive or vexatious because there was already an "initial resolution" by the Office of the Ombudsman dated November 25, 2011. This was only delayed due to requests made to add respondents.
For its part, the court stated in its three-page resolution that the prosecution's arguments have already been considered and passed upon.
"Nothing new was raised in the motion. The delay in investigation is not justified by the brazen excuse that the COA belatedly submitted its report," the resolution read. "Even if the COA submitted its report only in September 2009, still, it took the Ombudsman a fact-finding period of six years computed therefrom up to July 20, 2015."
That alone is already highly unreasonable, according to the court. Add to that, it took the Ombudsman eight years just to come up with its consolidated resolution on April 10, 2017.
"Wherefore, finding no reason to deviate from the assailed resolution dated April 19, 2018, the prosecution's motion for reconsideration thereof is hereby denied," the court ruled.
The resolution was penned by chairperson Maryann E. Corpus-Mañalac and Associate Justices Rafael Lagos and Maria Theresa Mendoza-Arcega.
ans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:#222222;mso-bidi-font-weight: bold'>
However, there were no reported injuries and casualties from the 29th IB, it said.
The said incident has brought negative effects to the concerned villagers in Zapanta Valley that resulted in their exodus, the agency report added.
(MANILA BULLETIN)
Baguilat was earlier cleared of his graft charges after the court granted his motion to dismiss due to the Office of the Ombudsman's delay in the conduct of the preliminary investigation against him.
He was earlier slapped with violations of Section 3(e) and (g) of Republic Act 3019, also known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, for conspiring with private individual Jose Man Singh when he was still the governor of Ifugao.
Baguilat reportedly gave Singh unwarranted benefits when he entered into a contract with him for the purchase of a secondhand Isuzu Wagon Trooper worth P900,000 back in March 2003 without the conduct of a competitive public bidding.
But because the complaint was filed on September 24, 2009 and the case only reached the Sandiganbayan on February 9, 2018, the court dismissed his charges due to inordinate delay.
The prosecution tried to reason that it could not be faulted for the delay, considering that the letter-complaint was filed in 2004 and was endorsed to the COA for appropriate action only in September 2009 when the COA issued its report recommending that the filing of charges against Baguilat be made.
At the same time, the prosecution maintained that the delay is not oppressive or vexatious because there was already an "initial resolution" by the Office of the Ombudsman dated November 25, 2011. This was only delayed due to requests made to add respondents.
For its part, the court stated in its three-page resolution that the prosecution's arguments have already been considered and passed upon.
"Nothing new was raised in the motion. The delay in investigation is not justified by the brazen excuse that the COA belatedly submitted its report," the resolution read. "Even if the COA submitted its report only in September 2009, still, it took the Ombudsman a fact-finding period of six years computed therefrom up to July 20, 2015."
That alone is already highly unreasonable, according to the court. Add to that, it took the Ombudsman eight years just to come up with its consolidated resolution on April 10, 2017.
"Wherefore, finding no reason to deviate from the assailed resolution dated April 19, 2018, the prosecution's motion for reconsideration thereof is hereby denied," the court ruled.
The resolution was penned by chairperson Maryann E. Corpus-Mañalac and Associate Justices Rafael Lagos and Maria Theresa Mendoza-Arcega.
ans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:#222222;mso-bidi-font-weight: bold'>
However, there were no reported injuries and casualties from the 29th IB, it said.
The said incident has brought negative effects to the concerned villagers in Zapanta Valley that resulted in their exodus, the agency report added.