Prosecutors appeal dismissal of Lapid’s graft case

State prosecutors have appealed the Sandiganbayan’s dismissal of the graft case against former Senator Manuel Lapid for having taken too much time at the preliminary investigation stage.

In an 11-page motion for reconsideration, the Ombudsmman’s Office of the Special Prosecutor said the court should have looked at the circumstances too and seen the time consumed was reasonable. It stressed that “speedy disposition is a relative and flexible concept.”

As Pampanga governor in 2004, Lapid was accused of overpricing the purchase of 3,880 liters of fertilizer by P4.27 million, as well as forgoing the requirement of public bidding.

The antigraft court’s First Division on Sept. 30 dismissed the case against him and three fertilizer suppliers because preliminary investigation took 37 months, nine of which was spent in the Ombudsman’s approval of the indictment prepared by prosecutors.

But state prosecutors argued that Lapid and his co-accused had asked the Ombudsman’s prosecutors for several extensions of the deadline of filing their counter-affidavits, as well as time to seek the production of certain documents.

“To fault the Office of the Ombudsman and include the period spent for the allowance on extensions asked to file their counter-affidavit and other several motions for the production of documents and the like is unfair for the prosecution,” the motion read.

The appeal added that the respondents only denied the graft allegations at the preliminary investigation stage and never moved for an early resolution of their cases.

Prosecutors said “the respondents’ silence may therefore be interpreted as a waiver of such right” to the speedy disposition of their cases.

Invoking the right to speedy litigation “is a powerful aid to the vigilant, but not to those who slumber in their rights for time runs against the indolent and those who neglect their rights,” the motion read.

Prosecutors added that the “baseless imputation of delay and prejudice” should not be enough to prevent the Ombudsman from pursuing the case

“The unfounded claim of undue delay is against the rule of law. State should not be precluded to run after the supposed violators so long as the statute of limitation in instituting the crime and applying the penalty therefore has not prescribed,” the appeal stated.

While the court dismissed the criminal case against Lapid and the suppliers—Malayan Pacific Trading Corp. (MPTC) incorporators Ma. Victoria Aquino-Abubakar and Leolita Aquino, and  D.A. Vazquez Macro Micro Fertilizer Resources (DAVMMFR) proprietor Dexter Alexander Vasquez—it clarified that the government can still pursue a civil case to recover damages from them. –ATM