Manila Bulletin
Philippines
SC reinstates graft case vs. Lapid, three others in P4.2 million fertilizer scam
Philippines
SC reinstates graft case vs. Lapid, three others in P4.2 million fertilizer scam
SC reinstates graft case vs. Lapid, three others in P4.2 million fertilizer scam
Published Dec 5, 2019 12:00 am
By Rey Panaligan
The Supreme Court (SC) has reversed the 2016 Sandiganbayan ruling dismissing the graft case against former Pampanga governor and now senator Manuel “Lito” M. Lapid and three others in connection with the multi-million-peso fertilizer scam at the Department of Agriculture (DA).
Senator Manuel “Lito” Lapid (Senator Lito Lapid / Facebook / MANILA BULLETIN)
With the ruling, the SC reinstated the case and directed the Sandiganbayan to resolve the charges against Lapid and his co-accused “with reasonable dispatch.”
In a decision written by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes Jr., the SC ruled that the right to a speedy disposition of a case was not violated in the charges filed against Lapid and his co-accused Maria Victoria M. Aquino Abubakar, Leolita M. Aquino, and Dexter Alexander S.D. Vasquez.
Abubakar and Aquino were officers of the Malayan Pacific Trading Corporation (MPTC) while Vasquez was proprietor of D.A. Vasquez Macro-Micro Fertilizer Resources.
The SC decision stated:
“In sum, delay becomes inordinate only in the presence of arbitrary, vexatious and oppressive actions or inactions that are discernible from the proceedings. No such delay attended the Ombudsman’s proceedings that would warrant the dismissal of the criminal case against therein respondents.
“In the absence of vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays in the conduct of the preliminary investigation, there can be no denial of right to a speedy disposition of cases.
“In line with the foregoing disquisitions, the Court finds that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion when it dismissed the criminal case against Lapid, et. al., supposedly due to inordinate delay.”
Case records showed that in 2004, the provincial government of Pampanga purchased 3,880 bottles of Macro-Micro Foliar Fertlizers from MPTC under DA’s “Ginintuang Masagang Ani” program.
In 2006, the Field Investigation Office (FIO)-Task Force Abono started its investigation. In 2011, the FIO filed with the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) a complaint against the Pampanga provincial officials led by Lapid and private citizens Abubakar, Aquino, and Vasquez.
In 2012, Lapid moved for the resolution of the complaint. In 2013, the OMB’s special panel for fertilizer fund scam found probable cause to indict Lapid, Abubakar, Aquino, and Vasquez.
In 2014, Lapid filed a motion to reconsider the finding of probable cause. The motion was denied.
On Nov. 4, 2015, a criminal charge sheet was filed with the Sandiganbayan against Lapid and his co-accused for causing undue injury to the government in the amount of P4.2 million.
Prior to his arraignment, Lapid filed on Jan. 8, 2016 a motion to dismiss the criminal case with an allegation that there was inordinate delay of eight years in the fact-finding investigation, preliminary investigation, and the filing of the case in court. His motion was adopted by his co-accused.
On Sept. 30, 2016, the Sandiganbayan dismissed the criminal case with a ruling that the right of Lapid and his co-accused to a speedy disposition of the case was violated.
With the Sandiganbayan’s denial of the motion for reconsideration, government lawyers elevated the issue to the SC.
“We grant the petition,” the SC ruled.
The SC said “reasonable time to resolve a proceeding is not determined by mere mathematical computation, but must be ‘appraised from the point of view of how much time a competent and independent public officer would need in relation to the complexity of a given case.’”
“From the timeline presented by the petitioner, it appears that while Lapid filed his counter-affidavit on June 8, 2011, Abubakar and Aquino filed their counter-affidavit only on Feb. 24, 2012, after twice seeking for an extension of time to do so,” it said.
“Thus, it was only on March 28, 2012 that the complaint and the counter-affidavits were submitted to the panel for resolution. Eight months after, or on Nov. 5, 2012, the panel had already submitted its recommendation. The Ombudsman, thus, took proper action in the ordinary course of things and pursuant to its mandate,” it stressed.
The SC also pointed out: “It is also undisputed that while Lapid filed a motion to resolve on Nov. 5, 2012, invoking his right to a speedy disposition of his case, he moved for the dismissal of the case only on Jan. 8, 2016, or when he was about to be arraigned. Respondents, thus, allowed a considerable time to lapse before they invoked their right to a speedy disposition of their case.”
Senator Manuel “Lito” Lapid (Senator Lito Lapid / Facebook / MANILA BULLETIN)
With the ruling, the SC reinstated the case and directed the Sandiganbayan to resolve the charges against Lapid and his co-accused “with reasonable dispatch.”
In a decision written by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes Jr., the SC ruled that the right to a speedy disposition of a case was not violated in the charges filed against Lapid and his co-accused Maria Victoria M. Aquino Abubakar, Leolita M. Aquino, and Dexter Alexander S.D. Vasquez.
Abubakar and Aquino were officers of the Malayan Pacific Trading Corporation (MPTC) while Vasquez was proprietor of D.A. Vasquez Macro-Micro Fertilizer Resources.
The SC decision stated:
“In sum, delay becomes inordinate only in the presence of arbitrary, vexatious and oppressive actions or inactions that are discernible from the proceedings. No such delay attended the Ombudsman’s proceedings that would warrant the dismissal of the criminal case against therein respondents.
“In the absence of vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays in the conduct of the preliminary investigation, there can be no denial of right to a speedy disposition of cases.
“In line with the foregoing disquisitions, the Court finds that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion when it dismissed the criminal case against Lapid, et. al., supposedly due to inordinate delay.”
Case records showed that in 2004, the provincial government of Pampanga purchased 3,880 bottles of Macro-Micro Foliar Fertlizers from MPTC under DA’s “Ginintuang Masagang Ani” program.
In 2006, the Field Investigation Office (FIO)-Task Force Abono started its investigation. In 2011, the FIO filed with the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) a complaint against the Pampanga provincial officials led by Lapid and private citizens Abubakar, Aquino, and Vasquez.
In 2012, Lapid moved for the resolution of the complaint. In 2013, the OMB’s special panel for fertilizer fund scam found probable cause to indict Lapid, Abubakar, Aquino, and Vasquez.
In 2014, Lapid filed a motion to reconsider the finding of probable cause. The motion was denied.
On Nov. 4, 2015, a criminal charge sheet was filed with the Sandiganbayan against Lapid and his co-accused for causing undue injury to the government in the amount of P4.2 million.
Prior to his arraignment, Lapid filed on Jan. 8, 2016 a motion to dismiss the criminal case with an allegation that there was inordinate delay of eight years in the fact-finding investigation, preliminary investigation, and the filing of the case in court. His motion was adopted by his co-accused.
On Sept. 30, 2016, the Sandiganbayan dismissed the criminal case with a ruling that the right of Lapid and his co-accused to a speedy disposition of the case was violated.
With the Sandiganbayan’s denial of the motion for reconsideration, government lawyers elevated the issue to the SC.
“We grant the petition,” the SC ruled.
The SC said “reasonable time to resolve a proceeding is not determined by mere mathematical computation, but must be ‘appraised from the point of view of how much time a competent and independent public officer would need in relation to the complexity of a given case.’”
“From the timeline presented by the petitioner, it appears that while Lapid filed his counter-affidavit on June 8, 2011, Abubakar and Aquino filed their counter-affidavit only on Feb. 24, 2012, after twice seeking for an extension of time to do so,” it said.
“Thus, it was only on March 28, 2012 that the complaint and the counter-affidavits were submitted to the panel for resolution. Eight months after, or on Nov. 5, 2012, the panel had already submitted its recommendation. The Ombudsman, thus, took proper action in the ordinary course of things and pursuant to its mandate,” it stressed.
The SC also pointed out: “It is also undisputed that while Lapid filed a motion to resolve on Nov. 5, 2012, invoking his right to a speedy disposition of his case, he moved for the dismissal of the case only on Jan. 8, 2016, or when he was about to be arraigned. Respondents, thus, allowed a considerable time to lapse before they invoked their right to a speedy disposition of their case.”