Sandigan affirms graft raps vs ex-Antique lawmaker

The Sandiganbayan has affirmed a graft case filed against former Antique lawmaker Exequiel Javier in connection with the allegedly anomalous awarding of a P9.9-million agricultural project to a private individual.

In a resolution dated March 21, the anti-graft court’s Third Division denied Javier’s motion to dismiss the case, and instead ruled that there is sufficient ground to proceed with the trial.

After evaluating the records of the case, the court found probable cause for violation of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act by the accused.

The resolution was penned by Third Division chairman and Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Amparo CabotajeTang and concurred in by Associate Justices Bernelito Fernandez and Sarah Jane Fernandez.

Filed by the Office of the Ombudsman in June last year, the case stemmed from the allegedly anomalous transfer of ownership of a 40-ton rice mill worth P9.9 million to Greater Antique Development Cooperative (Grand Coop) chaired by private respondent Efren Esclavilla.

The ombudsman said the rice mill, funded by Javier’s Priority Development Assistance Fund or pork barrel, was originally intended for the municipality of Patnongon.

The transfer of ownership was allegedly done between 2007 and 2008 without justifying the selection of Grand Coop as grantee.

Aside from Javier and Esclavilla, named respondents in the case were former Patnongon mayor Henry Mondejar; Mayor Johnny Bacongallo; Councilors Gemma Cepeda, Thomas Bacaoco and Al Brian Crespo, and former councilors Felix Gregorio Barrientos, Rene Philip Cayetano, Teopisto Estaris Jr. and Erika Orcasitas.

The Third Division rejected Javier’s argument that the case must be dismissed due to the ombudsman’s inordinate delay in investigating and filing the charges.

It also denied the motion to dismiss jointly filed by Esclavilla, Mondejar and Estaris, who also cited the supposed inordinate delay by the ombudsman.

The anti-graft court said the ombudsman promptly acted on the case after it was docketed for preliminary investigation on Aug. 28, 2013.

“While there may have been delay in the disposition of the case before the Office of the Ombudsman, the court does not find such delay as vexatious, arbitrary, capricious or oppressive,” the resolution said.

The court also found premature Javier’s defense that the ombudsman failed to prove that he conspired with the other respondents.

“These matters can be evaluated during trial,” the court said.