Graft case vs Carcar VM to continue
The Sandiganbayan 17th Division has denied the plea of Carcar City Vice Mayor Mario Patricio Barcenas to dismiss the anti-graft case filed against him over an alleged fertilizer fund scam.
Associate Justice Ma. Theresa Dolores GomezEstoesta, in her resolution, denied the omnibus motion to quash the criminal information, to quash the warrant of arrest and/or to dismiss filed by Barcenas.
Barcenas earlier sought dismissal of his case, claiming the facts charged do not constitute an offense.
“Direct contracting per se was not illegal as the same was allowed under Section 50 of Republic Act 9184 or the Government Procurement Reform Act,” he said.
The case stemmed from Carcar City government's purchase of 166 liters/bottles of foliar fertilizers in 2011, amounting to P239,040, through a direct contract with M.M. Castillo General Merchandise.
“No actual injury was caused because the purchase of the fertilizers was not a ghost project, nor was there incomplete delivery of the same. All 166 liters of foliar fertilizers were delivered to the intended beneficiaries, and duly accounted for,” the omnibus motion read.
Barcenas said he approved the payment for the foliar fertilizers after his subordinates reviewed and signed the disbursement voucher.
Barcenas had asked to defer further proceedings pending resolution of his petition for certiorari filed before the Supreme Court questioning the Office of the Ombudsman's determination of probable cause.
In its comment, the prosecution argued that the contentions raised by Barcenas can only be resolved in a full-blown trial.
The petition for certiorari, the prosecution added, was not a ground to defer the proceedings in the absence of temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary investigation.
Moreover, Barcenas' right to speedy disposition of cases, which he claimed, was not violated, according to the prosecution.
In the end, the Sandiganbayan denied the omnibus motion filed by Barcenas.
The division said there was no undue delay on the part of the Ombudsman.
“Without any showing that delay was deliberately chosen by the prosecution to obtain an acute advantage, or that there was an unnecessary deviation from regular protocols in the stages of preliminary investigation, accused Barcenas' case has no parallelism to Tatad and People v. Sandiganbayan, which would result in the grant of the radical relief sought,” read Estoesta's resolution.
In the Tatad's case, the Supreme Court ruled that Tatad's prosecution was politically-tainted, and that there was a deviation from established procedures prescribed for preliminary investigation.
“While accused Barcenas decries the length of time the Ombudsman allegedly lulled in completing its preliminary investigation, which he claims took almost seven years, he does not claim that he has been vexed by the long interval, except for the mathematical computation he construed form the timeline,” the resolution further read.