Prosecutor blames Mitra for delays

The state prosecutor opposing the dismissal of the graft case against former Rep. Abraham Kahlil Mitra has said the delays in the proceedings against him have been necessary and justified to ensure that the right of the accused to due process is fully upheld.

Mitra, chair of the Games and Amusement board, had asked the Sandiganbayan to dismiss the charges against him because of the protracted proceedings to resolve his alleged crime 12 years ago, but the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) of the Ombudsman opposed his motion partly on grounds that he had also been responsible for the delays.

In its Oct. 21 comment on Mitra’s motion on Oct. 5, which were made available to the media only on Thursday, the OSP said dismissal of the case is “too drastic a remedy.”

 Agri funds misuse

A “necessary delay” in a case would be justified if the time spent was intended to “afford the respondent/accused the full opportunity to ventilate his/her defenses in observance of the due process clause,” the OSP told the antigraft court’s First Division.

Mitra was charged with graft and malversation for the alleged misuse of P3 million earmarked for farm inputs for his constituents in Palawan’s second district when he was its representative in 2004.

He allegedly endorsed GabayMasa as the partner nongovernment organization to implement the farm inputs project. Officials hastily released funds to the NGO even though it lacked the qualifications required by Commission on Audit rules and failed to make required reports.

 ‘Not guilty’ plea

Mitra pleaded not guilty during arraignment on Oct. 10 before the court allowed him to travel abroad to attend an international boxing convention and “provide moral support” to Manny Pacquiao during the senator’s fight in Las Vegas on Sunday.

Field investigators submitted the complaint against Mitra on April 18, 2011. The Ombudsman formally filed the case with the Sandiganbayan on Sept. 23, 2016.

The OSP noted that Mitra did not immediately file his counteraffidavit to the investigators’ complaint. It said Mitra twice ignored deadlines by the Ombudsman to submit his counteraffidavit—on July 20, 2011 and on Jan. 25, 2012. He was even granted a 15-day extension after the second deadline, before he finally filed his counteraffidavit on May 2, 2012.