Sandiganbayan junks ex-Iloilo lawmaker’s bid to dismiss graft raps
MANILA, Philippines — The Sandiganbayan has denied a motion filed by former Iloilo 5th District Rep. Rolex Suplico to dismiss the graft charges filed against him.
According to the 17-page resolution dated January 15, the Fifth Division denied Suplico’s claims that his right to a speedy disposition of the case was violated, as there was no malicious intent to delay the proceedings on the side of the prosecution.
“The concept of speedy disposition of the case, like speedy trial, is relative or flexible concept,” Sandiganbayan said in the decision penned by Fifth Division chair Associate Justice Rafael Lagos.
“These rights are deemed violated only when the proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays or when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured,” the anti-graft court added.
The investigation started more than eight years ago — in February 2010 — when former Rep. Neil Tupas requested the Office of the Ombudsman in the Visayas to probe Suplico.
Suplico is facing charges for allegedly violating Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 or the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, when he supposedly allocated around P25 million of his Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) to AARON Foundation Phils. Inc., with the Technology and Livelihood Resource Center (TLRC) as the implementing agency.
AARON Foundation Phils. failed to liquidate the said amount, so the prosecution ruled that Suplico and TLRC should be accountable for it.
The case has lagged since then as Suplico’s arraignment was only scheduled on November 16, 2018, but was further moved to January 18.
Suplico cited the Supreme Court’s ruling on Tatad vs Sandiganbayan, where the court decided that a delay of three years in the “conduct of preliminary investigation was enough to dismiss a case.” He comparison it to his case which took more than eight years to be investigated.
However, the anti-graft court noted that there was a miscalculation in the delay and that it took only only four years and seven months. It added that the delay was justifiable due to the circumstances the prosecution faced in investigating the case.
“The Court agrees with the prosecution that the presence of several factors which are beyond the control of the Office of the Ombudsman, as shown by the detailed timeline illustrating the circumstances attended in the conduct of preliminary investigation, justify the apparent delay,” Sandiganbayan said.
“Mere reference to the relevant portions of the decision (Tatad vs Sandiganbayan) is not enough,” it added.
The anti-graft court also implied that some of the delays can be blamed on Suplico himself.
“Clearly, as early as April 28, 2014, or less than 2 months from the filing of the complaint, an order was issued by the Office of the Ombudsman to file Counter-Affidavits to all the respondents/accused,” the court explained.
“But despite the same was sent to three different addresses, accused-movant Suplico claims that he did not receive a copy of the order […],” the court said.
Moreover, Suplico’s motion to quash information with motion to cancel arraignment also asserted that the Office of the Ombudsman’s rule on forum-shopping was also violated.
Sandiganbayan noted that the preliminary investigation of the Ombudsman is neither a quasi-judicial function nor an administrative one. /ee
