SC orders prosecution of Bacarra, Ilocos Norte vice mayor for malversation

INQUIRER FILE PHOTO

MANILA, Philippines—The Supreme Court ordered the Sandiganbayan to proceed with the prosecution of Bacarra, Ilocos Norte Vice Mayor Pacifico Velasco for technical malversation.

In a decision made public Thursday, the high court’s Second Division through Associate Justice Jose Perez said that Velasco’s plea against the case was dismissed for lack of merit.

Velasco accused the Sandiganbayan of committing grave abuse of discretion after it denied his motion for reinvestigation and his appeal on June 9 and August 15, 2005.

The case stemmed from Philip Corpus Velasco’s complaint against the vice-mayor for the purchase of P670,000 worth of a road grader which was later on appropriated for the official’s personal use.

On December 2002, the Office of the Ombudsman for Luzon issued a resolution dismissing the complaint for lack of probable cause. Then, acting Mayor Nicomedes Dela Cruz filed a motion for reconsideration which was also denied. But the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and other Law Enforcement Offices (MOLEO) Orlando Casimiro directed the Office of Legal Affairs to review the case which eventually led to the filing of the case with the Sandiganbayan.

Velasco sought to stop the Sandiganbayan from pursuing the case against him but the anti-graft court turned down his bid prompting him to go to the Supreme Court.

But the high court said he was not denied due process because he was properly informed of what he was being investigated and later charged with.

“He participated actively in the preliminary investigation and in fact, was given ample opportunity to buttress the allegations against him when he filed his counter-affidavit and submitted evidence on his behalf,” the high court said.

“What matters is compliance with due process during the preliminary investigation. That was accorded to petitioner. Due process is satisfied when the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the controversy or an opportunity to move for a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of,” the high court said.