Prosecutors on Devanadera motion to junk graft case: Why only now?
Agnes Devanadera (PHOTO BY VINCE NONATO / INQUIRER)
MANILA — State prosecutors have opposed the “belated” bid of former Government Corporate Counsel Agnes Devanadera to throw out her graft case in connection with the Philippine National Construction Corp.’s disadvantageous P6.1-billion debt settlement in 2006.
In a 12-page opposition to Devanadera’s April 18 motion, the Ombudsman’s Office of the Special Prosecutor questioned why she only invoked “inordinate delay” on the heels of the First Division’s dismissal of the cases against the PNCC’s officials last month.
Noting that Devanadera only assailed the supposed investigation delays for the first time, prosecutors said: “The belated assertion of her alleged right to speedy disposition of her case is tantamount to a waiver of her right.”
Through this case, the OSP went on the offensive against Supreme Court division rulings commonly cited by public officials when they seek the dismissal of their cases on the grounds of inordinate delay.
The Supreme Court Second Division’s 2013 Coscolluela ruling has held that it not the accused’s duty to follow up on his case to ensure it is not delayed. The same court’s 2016 Almeda ruling has held that the
accused does not need to object to the delays as long as he did not help cause it.
The OSP said these division rulings could not go against the principles already adopted by various en banc (full court) rulings, which established the need for the accused to assert the right to speedy disposition of their case.
“Applying the controlling principle in the instant case, the Honorable Court should not dismiss the instant case… in as much as herein accused-movant never asserted such right except when the Honorable Court dismissed the other cases…,” the opposition stressed.
Prosecutors also appealed to the Sandiganbayan to recognize that the heavy caseload of the Office of the Ombudsman has made it hard to resolve cases within an ideal period.
“Both the State and the accused are entitled to due process,” the opposition read. “A party’s individual rights should not work against and preclude the people’s equally important right to public justice.”
The graft case arose from the PNCC’s disadvantageous compromise agreement with British lender Radstock Securities Ltd., to avoid further legal setbacks after the latter sued to collect Marcos-era debt.
As government corporate counsel, Devanadera was accused of advising the PNCC to take on the deal in February 2006 and signing the agreement in August that year.
The Sandiganbayan in its Apr. 7 resolution granted the motions to dismiss filed by former board chairman Renato Valdecantos, president and chief executive officer Ma. Theresa Defensor, president and CEO Rolando Macasaet, chief operating officer Arthur Aguilar, and former board members Erwin Tanunliong, Hermogenes Concepcion Jr., Ottomama Benito, Enrique Cuejilo Jr., Roy Eduardo Lucero, Fermin Lusung Sr., Jeremy Parulan, and Antonio Villar.
It said the Office of the Ombudsman should have acted on the case as soon as former PNCC president Luis Sison filed a complaint against Aguilar only in 2006.
The Ombudsman would only act on the case when Sison in 2010 filed a new complaint against Aguilar and his fellow PNCC executives, as well as Devanadera. The newer case arose from the 2009 Supreme Court ruling that annulled the onerous deal.
The Sandiganbayan found that it took six years, or ten in Aguilar’s case, at the preliminary investigation stage before their cases reached the court. This violated their right to the speedy disposition of their cases.
The April 7 resolution prompted Devanadera to file an April 18 motion arguing that the finding of inordinate delay should apply to her too.
Her motion pointed out that she was similarly charged with violating Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act on the basis of the “same set of facts and evidence.”
Besides Devanadera, the only other remaining defendant in the case is former PNCC board member Raymundo Francisco.
The deal saw PNCC hand over P3.188-billion worth of government-owned real properties, a 20% share in the firm worth P713 million, and half of its 6% share in the gross toll revenue of the Manila North Tollways Corp., from 2008 to 2035, approximately valued at P1.287 billion.
Prosecutors claimed the PNCC’s assignment of “substantially all of its assets” in order to pay its obligations to Radstock was prejudicial to its other creditors, including the national government.
In the 2009 Supreme Court ruling, decision writer Antonio Carpio dubbed the agreement as “pillage of the public coffers that ranks among one of the most brazen and hideous in the history of this country.” SFM
