No bail for contractor in P82-M DPWH scam

The Sandiganbayan has denied the bail plea of a private supplier charged for the alleged “vehicle repair scam” at the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) in 2001.

In a five-page resolution, the anti-graft court’s second division denied the motion to fix bail filed by Conchita dela Cruz in relation to the plunder case filed against her.

The resolution was in relation to the case filed over the P82.321-million “ghost” vehicle repair scam at the DPWH in 2001.

Dela Cruz, in her motion last May, cited a previous Supreme Court (SC) ruling that allowed former Senate president and now presidential legal counsel Juan Ponce Enrile to be freed on bail due to his old age.

“Unlike in the case of Enrile, accused Dela Cruz has not clearly shown that her incarceration will be injurious to her health or endanger her life,” read the resolution.

“She merely makes a sweeping declaration that being 67 years old, ‘the increasing frailty that comes with old age and the uncertainty brought about by the pandemic would be detrimental to her,’” it added.

The same resolution also denied the motion of two other private respondents, Romeo Fullido and Nonette Fullido, who asked the court to lift the warrants issued for their arrest and order a reinvestigation.

The court noted the SC, in 2014, affirmed the 2004 ombudsman decision finding probable cause to file the case, making the issue moot and academic.

Meanwhile, in a separate sixpage resolution, the Sandiganbayan Second Division also dismissed the motion to quash filed by respondents Napoleon Anas, Maria Luisa Cruz and Luisito dela Rosa and adopted by Florendo Bunag Arias, Rogelio Laganga Beray, Melissa Tangpuz Espina, Violeta Ragasa Tadeo, Rodelia Del Rosario Uy and Victoria Maniego Go.

Uy and Go were among the private individuals charged in the case, while the rest were former DPWH employees.

In their motion, the accused claimed that there was no sufficient probable cause to warrant the filing of plunder charges against them, adding that there is a violation of their constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases due to inordinate delay.

The anti-graft court again cited the 2014 SC decision in denying the motion, adding that the 17-year delay cited by the respondents was due to the pending appeals filed before the High Court.