The Supreme Court (SC) has upheld the Sandiganbayan’s 2017 rulings which denied the plea of former Ilocos Sur Rep. Salacnib F. Baterina to dismiss the graft, malversation and direct bribery charges filed against him for his alleged misuse of his P35 million in Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) in 2007.

In a decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC said that Baterina failed “to sufficiently show in the present petition that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying the Omnibus Motion” to dismiss the charges.

The decision was promulgated last July 7 and made public last Dec. 20.

Records showed that on Nov. 29, 2013, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) filed a complaint against Baterina involving alleged misuse of his P35 million PDAF allotment for 2007.

On May 29, 2015, the Field Investigation Office (FIO) of the Office of the Ombudsman (0MB) filed a complaint alleging that the P35 million PDAF was released to Technology Resource and Livelihood Center (TRC). The TRC transferred the whole amount to Philippine Development Foundation, Inc. and Kaagapay Magpakailanman Foundation, Inc. allegedly to cover the implementation of various livelihood projects in the 1st District of llocos Sur.

On May 4, 2016, the 0MB issued a resolution to indict Baterina and the other respondents for three counts of graft, three counts of malversation, and one count of direct bribery. Baterina’s motion to reconsider the indictment was denied.

On March 17, 2017, seven criminal cases were filed by the OMB before the Sandiganbayan and were raffled to the anti-graft court’s second division.

On Sept. 22, 2017, the Sandiganbayan denied Baterina’s motion to dismiss the charges on his allegation that he was denied his constitutional right to due process. When his motion for reconsideration was denied on Dec. 12, 2017, he elevated the issue before the SC.

Aside from reiterating his argument that he was denied due process, Baterina told the SC that the preliminary investigation conducted by the OMB was flawed and there was an inordinate delay in the filing of informations (criminal charge sheet) against him.

The SC dismissed Baterina’s petition. It ruled that the Sandiganbayan was correct in holding that the OMB was only exercising its investigative and prosecutorial power when its FIO filed another complaint.

It said that the OMB may refer the case for further fact-finding investigation to the appropriate office or official pursuant to Section 2, Rule II of Ombudsman’s Administrative Order No. 07.

It pointed out that the OMB “is not bound by the complaint or findings of the NBI because the latter may still subject it for further fact-finding investigation.”

At the same time, the SC said that Baterina was afforded the fair and reasonable opportunity to explain his side on the issue.

Also, it stressed that Baterina’s right to speedy disposition of the criminal case had not been violated as it noted that it took the OMB less than two years to conduct the preliminary investigation counted from the time the FIO- complaint was filed on March 17, 2017 despite the transactions involved the total amount of P35 million and implicated around 20 respondents from four government agencies and three non-government organizations.

“Therefore, considering the complexity of the case and the issues involved, the period of three years, three months, and 18 days is justified and is considered not to have prejudiced the rights of petitioner (Baterina),” the SC said.

The SC ruled: “WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED. The Resolutions dated Sept. 22, 2017 and Dec. 12, 2017 of the Sandiganbayan, Second Division, are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.”