Special Prosecutor asks SC to nullify dismissal of plunder case vs ex-DoF execs

MANILA, Philipines—The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) asked the Supreme Court to nullify the March Sandiganbayan resolution dismissing the multimillion-peso plunder case against former officials of the Department of Finance (DoF).

In its 49-page petition for review filed with the Supreme Court Wednesday, the special prosecutor’s office told the high court that the Sandiganbayan could not dismiss a case for lack of probable cause after it had previously issued various resolutions and orders that allowed the continuation of prosecution of former DoF officials.

The recent decision of the anti-graft court’s first division dismissed the plunder case against Faustino and Gloria Chingkoe, owners of Filstar Textile Industrial Corp.; Finance Undersecretary Antonio Belicena, the administrator of the One-Stop Shop Inter-Agency Tax Credit and Duty Drawback Center; former Deputy Executive Director Uldarico Andutan Jr.; tax specialist Rowena Malonzo; Filstar corporate secretary Grace Chingkoe; and Filstar representative Catalina Aranas Bautista.

The ruling stemmed from a motion filed by the Chingkoes to recall the arrest warrants issued against them. They were accused of defrauding the government of P74 million through the issuance of tax credit certificates (TCCs) to a company not qualified to receive them.

Among the Sandiganbayan rulings cited by the OSP include the warrant of arrest and hold departure order against all the accused, the April 3, 2009, resolution by the Sandiganbayan saying there exist probable cause to continue prosecuting all the accused.

Also, on Jan. 26, 2010, in a separate resolution, the Sandiganbayan dismissed the motion to quash the information filed by Belicena. The court said all the elements for the crime of plunder have been sufficiently alleged by the Special Prosecutor.

The OSP also pointed on the March 5, 2010, resolution of the Sandiganbayan denying the motion filed by Malonzo for the same reason as that of the resolution dated Jan. 26, 2010. The OSP added that the appeals filed by the respondents were dismissed by the anti-graft court in August 2009.

“On Aug. 3, 209, the Sandiganbayan denied all said motions and reiterated its findng that probable cause existed….Considering the issuance of the Order of Arrest, the Hold Departure Order and the various resolutions finding probable cause, the issue should have been deemed long settled,” the OSP stated in their petition.

“Respondent Court should have dismissed the motions for being reiterations of matters previously disposed, tantamount to second motions for reconsiderations which are prohibited by law and more so likewise passed upon by the Supreme Court,” the OSP added.

The OSP said that the anti-graft court also erred when it dismissed the case for the prosecutors’ alleged failure to prove that the amassed wealth was “for the benefit and enrichment of the public officers concerned.”

The OSP pointed that under Republic Act 7080, or the plunder law, plunder means “any public officer who, by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth…”

They said that the law itself did not require that the amassed, accumulated or acquired ill-gotten wealth be for the “custody, possession, benefit and/or enjoyment” of those accused. The OSP pointed out that in doing so, it would stifle the spirit of the plunder law because what a public official has to do is to pass the ill-gotten wealth to private individuals and he would be free from criminal liability.