Sandi­gan­bayan de­nies Ja­raula’s mo­tion to quash

Sun.Star Cagayan de Oro - - Topstories -

The anti-graft court has de­nied the mo­tion to quash filed by for­mer Ca­gayan de Oro City rep­re­sen­ta­tive Con­stantino Ja­raula in con­nec­tion with the al­leged mis­use of P3 mil­lion fer­til­izer fund last 2003 to 2004.

In a 13-paged res­o­lu­tion penned by As­so­ciate Jus­tice Lorifel Pahimna and pro­mul­gated last Mon­day, Novem­ber 5, the Sandi­gan­bayan de­nied the Con­sol­i­dated Mo­tion to Quash In­for­ma­tions filed by Ja­raula last Au­gust 24.

Ja­raula was in­dicted for two counts of graft and a malver­sa­tion charges. The other 15 co-ac­cused in­clude agri­cul­ture of­fi­cials and pri­vate re­spon­dents.

The for­mer con­gress­man has al­leged in his con­sol­i­dated mo­tion that his con­sti­tu­tional right to speedy dis­po­si­tion of cases against him has been vi­o­lated as the Of­fice of the Om­buds­man took a pe­riod of more than three years to con­duct and ter­mi­nate pre­lim­i­nary in­ves­ti­ga­tion.

He ar­gued that the com­plaints which were al­legedly com­mit­ted in 2004 were filed on Au­gust 4, 2014 or more than 10 years later.

How­ever, the court ruled to deny the mo­tion.

“Em­ploy­ing the fore­go­ing fac­tors of de­lay to this case, this court rules that the right of the ac­cused

to a speedy dis­po­si­tion of his case has not been vi­o­lated,”reads part of the res­o­lu­tion.

How­ever the court notes that the three-year de­lay is nec­es­sary and un­avoid­able and is not solely at­trib­ut­able to the Of­fice of the Om­buds­man con­sid­er­ing the num­ber of re­spon­dents given the op­por­tu­nity to file their counter-af­fi­davits, the num­ber of pa­pers and af­fi­davits filed and the ex­ten­sions sought.

“Con­sid­er­ing the fur­ther the com­plex­ity and vo­lu­mi­nous records needed to be pro­cured, ex­am­ined, and in­spected and scru­ti­nized and the six­teen re­spon­dents and their wit­nesses in­volved in the mat­ter that the Of­fice of the Om­buds­man failed to swiftly dis­pose of these cases for pre­lim­i­nary in­ves­ti­ga­tion and ar­riv­ing at a more pru­dent res­o­lu­tion of fil­ing the ap­pro­pri­ate charges against all the ac­cused,”the res­o­lu­tion said.

“Nonethe­less, this de­lay can­not be con­sid­ered as op­pres­sive, vex­a­tious or whim­si­cal that war­rants the dis­missal of the said cases,”it added. Al­wen Salir­ing

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Philippines

© PressReader. All rights reserved.