Agnes Devanadera (VINCE NONATO / INQUIRER FILE PHOTO)
State prosecutors appealed the dismissal of the graft case of former government corporate counsel Agnes Devanadera, questioning the Sandiganbayan’s finding of inordinate delay in the Ombudsman’s investigation of the allegedly anomalous Philippine National Construction Corp.’s (PNCC) P6.1-billion debt settlement.
In its motion for reconsideration filed before the anti-graft court’s First Division, the Office of the Special Prosecutor said the court “grievously erred” in dismissing the graft charge filed against Devanadera for advising the PNCC to take on an allegedly disadvantageous compromise agreement with British lender Radstock Securities Ltd. in 2006.
READ: Devanadera beats raps
The court granted Devanadera’s motion to dismiss the case due to inordinate delay, citing the violation on the accused’s constitutional right to speedy disposition of her case, which took the Ombudsman six years to complete in its preliminary investigation—from Oct. 2010 when the complaint was filed to Nov. 2016 when the information was filed before the court.
But the panel said the Ombudsman only took one year and five months to resolve the preliminary investigation of the case—from the filing of Devanadera’s counter-affidavit in July 2013 to the Ombudsman’s resolution indicting Devanadera in Dec. 2014.
The prosecution maintained that the fact-finding investigation should not be part of the reckoning period in the preliminary investigation.
“The prosecution maintains that there is no inordinate delay in the instant case and hereby humbly moves that the aforesaid assailed resolution be reconsidered,” the prosecution said.
READ: Prosecutors on Devanadera motion to junk graft case: Why only now?
The prosecution said the Ombudsman only took 10 months to resolve its preliminary investigation.
The Ombudsman said if there is any delay in the investigation, it is only for a period of two years and nine months, from the date of the submission for resolution of the case, to the filing of the information in court.
“This can hardly be considered inordinate or vexatious considering that there were 25 respondents in these cases, most of them raising various defenses and arguments in their counter-affidavits and motions for reconsiderations,” the prosecution said.
The prosecution also justified any delay with the deluge of cases before the Office of the Ombudsman, saying when the complaint against Devanadera was filed in 2010, there were 20,217 pending cases and another 7,926 newly instituted cases before the office.
The prosecution also noted that from the time the case has been deemed submitted for resolution before the Ombudsman, Devanadera “did not demand any expeditious action thereon.”
READ: Devanadera to invoke ‘unreasonable delays’ in plea to junk graft case
“In fact, accused Devanadera had not been subjected to any aggravating or annoying action to vex or harm her coming from the investigator of the Office of the Ombudsman,” the prosecution said.
The dismissal of Devanadera’s case due to inordinate delay adds to the increasing number of criminal cases junked by the Sandiganbayan due to this doctrine now legally questioned by the Ombudsman before the Supreme Court.
READ: Define ‘inordinate delay,’ Ombudsman asks SC | Ombudsman may refile graft cases if SC redefines ‘inordinate delay’
Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales has lamented the spate of dismissed cases due to this doctrine, a jurisprudence set by the Supreme Court.
The anti-graft court usually accounts for the period starting from the filing of complaint, the fact-finding, the preliminary investigation, until the filing of complaint.
But Ombudsman Morales said the period of investigation should only cover the preliminary stage, where the respondents are already asked to file their counter-affidavits to the charges imputed against them. JPV/rga
RELATED STORIES
Devanadera asks Sandiganbayan to junk Radstock graft case
Ex-Arroyo gov’t official charged with graft in P6B deal