Sandiganbayan rules no double jeopardy in Cagayan town mayor’s case

Published November 22, 2019, 1:46 PM

by Francine Ciasico

By Czarina Nicole Ong-Ki

There is no violation of Tuao, Cagayan Mayor Francisco Mamba Jr.’s right against double jeopardy in his graft charges involving the 2004 fertilizer fund scam, as far as the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division is concerned.

Sandiganbayan (MANILA BULLETIN)
Sandiganbayan (MANILA BULLETIN)

Mamba Jr. is facing two counts of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019, also known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, together with his brother, former mayor William Mamba and several other local officials.

This was in relation to the reportedly irregular procurement of 3,333 bottles of Bio-Nature Liquid Organic Fertilizer at P1,500 per bottle, or the total amount of P4,999,500 from Feshan on April 5, 2004. They also made the same purchase on July 2, 2004 with the same amount.

Double jeopardy is the prosecution of a person twice for the same offense. In his Motion to Dismiss, Mamba alleged that the offenses charged comprise only a single continuing offense.

Mamba stressed that the two acts of payment for the same purpose, motivated by the same intent for exactly the same transaction, constitute only a single offense. Should trial persist, Mamba claimed he would be at risk for double jeopardy.

The prosecution countered this claim by explaining that double jeopardy only takes place when the case is terminated either by acquittal or conviction. In this case, Mamba has not yet been placed in double jeopardy by mere filing of the charges against him.

The anti-graft court agreed with the prosecution, telling Mamba in its resolution that the simultaneous filing of the two separate information against him does not constitute double jeopardy.

“Here, there is no double jeopardy to speak of as the first jeopardy has not attached yet, or has it been validly terminated. Apparently, the accused have not even been arraigned, convicted or acquitted of either of the offenses covered by the subject information, hence, there is no second jeopardy for the same or identical offense to consider,” the resolution read.

The four-page resolution was penned by Associate Justice Maryann Corpus-Mañalac with the concurrence of Chairperson Rafael Lagos and Associate Justice Maria Theresa Mendoza-Arcega.

On August 5, the anti-graft court already issued a resolution denying Mamba’s motion to quash. Mamba tried to argue that the Commission on Audit (COA) came out with the report denouncing the irregularities back in May 2011, while the Office of the Ombudsman Field Investigators came out with their own accusations against Mamba Jr. seven years after.

Mamba also questioned why it took so long for the Office of the Ombudsman to act on the COA report.

After it was denied, Mamba filed a motion for reconsideration, which was once again denied. He filed his motion to dismiss on September 9.

 
CLICK HERE TO SIGN-UP
 

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

["news"]
[2189509,2814292,2534630,2485825,2408462,2358243,2358052,2344118,2339143,2047660,1998697,996820,995332,995948,995006,994327,994303,993947,993860,993770,993529,993383,993285,798318,2879801,2879793,2879787,2879790,2879784,2879781]

Sandiganbayan rules no double jeopardy in Cagayan town mayor’s case

Published November 22, 2019, 12:00 AM

by manilabulletin_admin

By Czarina Nicole Ong-Ki

There is no violation of Tuao, Cagayan Mayor Francisco Mamba Jr.’s right against double jeopardy in his graft charges involving the 2004 fertilizer fund scam, as far as the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division is concerned.

Sandiganbayan (MANILA BULLETIN)
Sandiganbayan (MANILA BULLETIN)

Mamba Jr. is facing two counts of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019, also known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, together with his brother, former mayor William Mamba and several other local officials.

This was in relation to the reportedly irregular procurement of 3,333 bottles of Bio-Nature Liquid Organic Fertilizer at P1,500 per bottle, or the total amount of P4,999,500 from Feshan on April 5, 2004. They also made the same purchase on July 2, 2004 with the same amount.

Double jeopardy is the prosecution of a person twice for the same offense. In his Motion to Dismiss, Mamba alleged that the offenses charged comprise only a single continuing offense.

Mamba stressed that the two acts of payment for the same purpose, motivated by the same intent for exactly the same transaction, constitute only a single offense. Should trial persist, Mamba claimed he would be at risk for double jeopardy.

The prosecution countered this claim by explaining that double jeopardy only takes place when the case is terminated either by acquittal or conviction. In this case, Mamba has not yet been placed in double jeopardy by mere filing of the charges against him.

The anti-graft court agreed with the prosecution, telling Mamba in its resolution that the simultaneous filing of the two separate information against him does not constitute double jeopardy.

“Here, there is no double jeopardy to speak of as the first jeopardy has not attached yet, or has it been validly terminated. Apparently, the accused have not even been arraigned, convicted or acquitted of either of the offenses covered by the subject information, hence, there is no second jeopardy for the same or identical offense to consider,” the resolution read.

The four-page resolution was penned by Associate Justice Maryann Corpus-Mañalac with the concurrence of Chairperson Rafael Lagos and Associate Justice Maria Theresa Mendoza-Arcega.

On August 5, the anti-graft court already issued a resolution denying Mamba’s motion to quash. Mamba tried to argue that the Commission on Audit (COA) came out with the report denouncing the irregularities back in May 2011, while the Office of the Ombudsman Field Investigators came out with their own accusations against Mamba Jr. seven years after.

Mamba also questioned why it took so long for the Office of the Ombudsman to act on the COA report.

After it was denied, Mamba filed a motion for reconsideration, which was once again denied. He filed his motion to dismiss on September 9.

 
CLICK HERE TO SIGN-UP
 

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

["news","news"]
[2079015,2879801,2879793,2879787,2879781,2879777,2879771]