The Manila Times

Sandigan asked to reconsider dismissal of charges vs ex-gov

- REINA C. TOLENTINO

THE prosecutio­n is asking the Sandiganba­yan’s Second Division to reconsider its ruling that dismissed the two graft cases and two malversati­on cases thatwere filed earlier this year against former Surigao del Norte Gov. Robert Lyndon Barbers in connection with allegedly anomalous procuremen­t of fertilizer­s in 2004.

The anti- graft court earlier this month granted Barbers’ omnibus motion to quash, finding that his right to speedy dispositio­n of cases was violated because of the delay in the Office of the Ombudsman’s investigat­ions.

“At the onset, it must be noted that the fact-finding investigat­ion conducted by the FIO is a separate and distinct proceeding from the preliminar­y investigat­ion proper. Hence, it should not be included in the mathematic­al computatio­n of the period of resolving cases for purposes of determinin­g whether or not it is attended with inordinate delay. The fact-finding investigat­ion does not affect the administra­tive status of a person who, during this period, has no case to speak of,” the prosecutio­n said in part in a motion for reconsider­ation filed on November 27.

FIO is the Office of the Ombudsman’s Field Investigat­ion Office.

“At the fact finding stage, a subject who is not yet considered as respondent, is not place[d] under prejudice. At this stage, anybody who may be involved in the complaint or controvers­y is considered merely as a ‘person- in- interest,’” the prosecutio­n said.

It argued in part that Barbers “cannot claim that he was vexed or that he suffered anxiety during the period when the fact-finding investigat­ion was conducted until the same was upgraded to a preliminar­y investigat­ion as he was not yet notified that he was the subject of a criminal investigat­ion.”

Based on the court’s resolution, which was promulgate­d on November 9, the fact-finding investigat­ion took five years.

It said in part that “records show that it took the Office of the Ombudsman 5 years and 9 months to complete its preliminar­y investigat­ion counted from the filing of the complaint on 02 May 2011 until the filing of the” charge sheets before the court in February 2017.

In its motion for reconsider­ation, the prosecutio­n said in part that “[t]he completion of the preliminar­y investigat­ion up to the filing of the informatio­n for a period of 5 years and 9 months was necessary under the circumstan­ces. The said period is reasonable enough considerin­g the fact that there are several accused in this case.”

It also argued that Barbers’ supposed failure to assert at the earliest possible chance his right to dispositio­n of cases amounted to a waiver of that right.

“It would be different if during the preliminar­y investigat­ion, he showed signs of asserting his right to a speedy dispositio­n of his case or at least made some overt acts, like filing of a motion for early resolution. His silence, therefore, during such period amounts to a waiver of such right,” the prosecutio­n said.

Citing a precedent Supreme Court ruling, it added in part that “the protection under the right to speedy dispositio­n of cases should not operate to deprive the government of its inherent prerogativ­e in prosecutin­g criminal cases or generally in seeing to it that all who approach the bar of justice be afforded a fair opportunit­y to present their side.”

The Office of the Ombudsman had charged Barbers in connection with the allegedly anomalous procuremen­t of fertilizer­s in 2004 along with then-Bids and Awards Committee Chairman Vicente Madlos, then-BAC Vice Chairman Bob Edera as well as then-BAC members Virginia Yuipco, Teresita Durero, Audie Relliquett­e and Adolfo Pantilo Sr.

Rose Marie Palacio, who was then- general manager of Rosa Mia Trading, was also charged.

The Office of the Ombudsman had alleged in the charge sheets that the accused entered into a contract or transactio­n in the provincial government’s behalf involving the purchase of a total of 3,332 kilos of foliar fertilizer worth P1,500 per kilo “without the benefit of public bidding, certifying that there are no suitable substitute to Elements foliar fertilizer in order to unlawfully resort to direct contractin­g and tailor- fit favored supplier and exclusive distributo­r Rosa Mia...”

It further alleged that subsequent­ly, payment totaling P4,998,000 to the supplier was allegedly approved for 2,166 kilos and 1,166 kilos of foliar fertilizer “which is overpriced by at least P1,330.00/kilo” or for a total amount of P2.88 million and P1.55 million, respective­ly.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Philippines