Prosecution hopes to reverse acquittal of former Southern Leyte governor
Published Jun 23, 2018 11:43 am
By Czarina Nicole Ong
The prosecution is hoping that the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division would change its mind in acquitting dismissed Southern Leyte Governor Damian Mercado of his two falsification charges involving the reportedly wrongful information he provided in two public documents.
Southern Leyte Governor Damian Mercado (Congress/ MANILA BULLETIN)
Mercado was acquitted in a resolution penned on May 21 as the court granted his motion to quash due to the violation of his right to speedy disposition of cases.
However, the prosecution wrote in its motion for reconsideration that there is no showing Mercado was prejudiced during the fact-finding phase conducted by the field investigation group of the Ombudsman - Visayas Regional Office 8.
"Due regard must be given to the facts and circumstances surrounding each case. The right to a speedy disposition of a case, like the right to speedy trial, is deemed violated only when the proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays," the MR read.
The prosecution believes that prejudice against Mercado should be proven and explained by himself, and it is not up to the prosecution to do so.
"There was no inordinate delay amounting to a violation of the accused's constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases," the MR further stated.
On the other hand, Mercado's camp filed an opposition to the prosecution's MR and insisted on the violation of his right to speedy disposition of cases. They added that the prosecution provided no new arguments that would warrant a reversal of the earlier resolution made by the court.
"Although the accused suffered no restraint of his liberty for the duration of the protracted investigation conducted by the Ombudsman, still, for that same period to time, he has lived under a cloud of anxiety, suspicion and hostility," his opposition read. "His financial resources substantially drained, his association curtailed, and he was subjected to public obloquy."
In the charge sheets against Mercado, he was accused of violating Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code when he faked the information about his educational background.
On June 30, 2010, Mercado wrote in the CSC Form 212 or the Personal Data Sheet that he obtained a degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Visayas. However, the truth was that he did not enroll at the university, nor did he obtain the said degree.
He also stated that he finished his elementary education in 1971, and that he is a Civil Engineer. However, he did not really graduate with the degree and he graduated from Massin Central School in 1968.
Mercado then submitted the same falsehood on the Elective Local Official's Profile Directory in Data Capture Form, which was submitted to the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG).
His case was ordered dismissed since the anti-graft court ruled "it took the Office of the Ombudsman six years from the time the letter-complaint was referred to OMB-Visayas for fact-finding investigation on March 31, 2008 to file a formal complaint-affidavit on April 12, 2014."
The court stated that the prosecution failed to provide valid reasons for the delay and convince the court why the instant case should not be dismissed.
Southern Leyte Governor Damian Mercado (Congress/ MANILA BULLETIN)
Mercado was acquitted in a resolution penned on May 21 as the court granted his motion to quash due to the violation of his right to speedy disposition of cases.
However, the prosecution wrote in its motion for reconsideration that there is no showing Mercado was prejudiced during the fact-finding phase conducted by the field investigation group of the Ombudsman - Visayas Regional Office 8.
"Due regard must be given to the facts and circumstances surrounding each case. The right to a speedy disposition of a case, like the right to speedy trial, is deemed violated only when the proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays," the MR read.
The prosecution believes that prejudice against Mercado should be proven and explained by himself, and it is not up to the prosecution to do so.
"There was no inordinate delay amounting to a violation of the accused's constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases," the MR further stated.
On the other hand, Mercado's camp filed an opposition to the prosecution's MR and insisted on the violation of his right to speedy disposition of cases. They added that the prosecution provided no new arguments that would warrant a reversal of the earlier resolution made by the court.
"Although the accused suffered no restraint of his liberty for the duration of the protracted investigation conducted by the Ombudsman, still, for that same period to time, he has lived under a cloud of anxiety, suspicion and hostility," his opposition read. "His financial resources substantially drained, his association curtailed, and he was subjected to public obloquy."
In the charge sheets against Mercado, he was accused of violating Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code when he faked the information about his educational background.
On June 30, 2010, Mercado wrote in the CSC Form 212 or the Personal Data Sheet that he obtained a degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Visayas. However, the truth was that he did not enroll at the university, nor did he obtain the said degree.
He also stated that he finished his elementary education in 1971, and that he is a Civil Engineer. However, he did not really graduate with the degree and he graduated from Massin Central School in 1968.
Mercado then submitted the same falsehood on the Elective Local Official's Profile Directory in Data Capture Form, which was submitted to the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG).
His case was ordered dismissed since the anti-graft court ruled "it took the Office of the Ombudsman six years from the time the letter-complaint was referred to OMB-Visayas for fact-finding investigation on March 31, 2008 to file a formal complaint-affidavit on April 12, 2014."
The court stated that the prosecution failed to provide valid reasons for the delay and convince the court why the instant case should not be dismissed.