Hold-departure order on Jaime Dichaves stays
MANILA, Philippines — The Sandiganbayan Special Division has denied the motion of businessman Jaime Dichaves to lift his hold departure order as well as the attachment order on his house in connection with a plunder case filed against him.
According to the anti-graft court, Dichaves’ plunder case is considered valid even though it is undergoing preliminary investigation.
With his hold departure order still in place, this means that Dichaves could not travel out of the country without the anti-graft court’s permission.
The order does not bar him from leaving the country completely. In fact, earlier this month, the anti-graft court allowed Dichaves to fly to Hong Kong and China to get materials for his business.
Dichaves is a co-accused of former President Joseph Estrada, who was earlier convicted of plunder for receiving kickbacks from the illegal numbers game jueteng. Estrada was pardoned in 2007 by then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
Estrada had pointed to Dichaves as the owner of the Jose Velarde bank account where millions of pesos were deposited.
Dichaves, who has yet to undergo trial, denied conniving with the deposed chief executive to amass ill-gotten wealth.
Upon Dichaves’ motion, the court earlier recalled his arrest warrant and directed the Office of the Ombudsman to complete the preliminary investigation of his case.
In its ruling on Dichaves’ motion to lift the hold departure order, the Sandiganbayan said its recall of Dichaves’ arrest warrant did not mean the hold order should also be lifted. Each order requires a different level of probable cause.
“The probable cause required to uphold the issuance of a warrant of arrest is separate and distinct from the probable cause needed to hold an accused for trial,” it said.
It also said a hold departure order could be issued against an accused if there was a formal criminal charge against him pending before the court.
It further said that despite the incomplete preliminary investigation of the case, “basic is the tenet that even the absence of a preliminary investigation does not impair the validity of the Information or otherwise render it ineffective.”
As for its refusal to lift the order of attachment on Dichaves’ properties, the court said the attachment must stay because of a civil action deemed instituted with his criminal case, and because of his plunder case, based on a claim for money or property embezzled.
