MANILA, Philippines – The Sandiganbayan denied the prosecution’s appeal to reverse its ruling that dismissed former Cavite governor Erineo “Ayong” Maliksi’s graft charge over the Ombudsman’s delay in resolving the case.
In a resolution, the antigraft court Second Division upheld its earlier resolution dismissing the case due to the “inordinate delay” by the antigraft unit in resolving the case that the defense team said got stalled for nine years.
“After a meticulous assessment of the pleadings, the Court finds no reason to deviate from its finding of inordinate delay in its resolution,” the court said.
The graft rap of Maliksi, a Liberal Party member, stemmed from an allegedly irregular procurement of medicines worth P2.5 million in 2002.
Maliksi allegedly gave unwarranted advantage or preference to the supplier, Allied Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc., which was awarded the government contract without public bidding and without proving that its medicines cost the cheapest.
The court found no merit in the prosecution’s claim that the nine-year delay is not “meticulous and capricious,” saying the delay violates the respondent’s constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases.
The defense said the Ombudsman dispensed the case for nine years – The first two graft cases were filed by then Cavite Vice Governor Juan Victor “JV” Remulla Aug. 2005; the Ombudsman received the complete cases of the two graft raps for approval Jan. 2007; a fact-finding investigation was conducted 2006 that gave way to the filing of a third case Sept. 2008 ; the complete documents of the third graft case against Maliksi was sent to the Ombudsman April 2010 for incorporation to the Remulla complaint; the Ombudsman found probable cause against Maliksi July 2014.
“By mathematical computation, the cases against the accused indisputably took all of nine years to be disposed of by the Office of the Ombudsman. The preliminary investigation alone lasted for six years. The fact-finding or field investigation consumed almost three years,” the court said.
The court also found no merit in the prosecution’s argument that the delay may be due to the political issues, which hounded the office, such as the impeachment that led to the resignation of then Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez.
The court added that the prosecution’s claim that the accused Maliksi did not complain of the delay has no merit, saying that the accused does not have the duty to follow up on the prosecution of cases.
“Under the foregoing considerations, there is no reason for the Court to reverse its findings on inordinate delay… Inordinate delay in resolving a criminal complaint, being violative of the constitutionally guaranteed right to due process and to the speedy disposition of the cases, warrants the dismissal of the criminal case,” the court said.