Court nixes Dichaves plea to fly to China, Thailand
The Sandiganbayan Special Division has denied the plea of businessman Jaime Dichaves to be allowed to travel to China and Bangkok on business after the Office of the Ombudsman found him liable for plunder.
In a resolution, the antigraft court said the Ombudsman’s affirmation of the plunder charge against Dichaves, for allegedly conspiring with former President Joseph Estrada to amass ill-gotten wealth, was its reason for not permitting him to leave the country.
Plunder is a nonbailable offense.
The court last month allowed Dichaves to travel to China to source raw materials for his business. When the order was issued, the preliminary investigation of his case was going on and his arrest warrant was no longer in force.
Dichaves, however, was unable to leave on the originally scheduled date because of a problem with the case number provided to the Bureau of Immigration. He filed a supplemental motion asking to be allowed to leave on another date and following another itinerary.
But while the supplemental motion was pending, the Office of the Ombudsman completed its preliminary investigation and told the court to order his arrest. The prosecutors also said the businessman was a flight risk.
Dichaves left the country after Estrada was impeached and before the preliminary investigation could be concluded.
Earlier, upon Dichaves’ motion, the court recalled his arrest warrant and directed the Office of the Ombudsman to complete the preliminary investigation on his plunder case. After the recall of his warrant, Dichaves returned to the Philippines.
Dichaves asked the Sandiganbayan on Wednesday to allow him to file a motion for reconsideration on the Ombudsman’s findings holding him liable for plunder.
Dichaves said the Ombudsman resolution was full of errors.
He said he was denied due process because the panel relied on records filed before the Office of the Ombudsman and the records of the trial of the plunder case, but he was not given copies of these. He contended as well that the panel relied on hearsay evidence.
