[av_one_full first min_height=” vertical_alignment=” space=” custom_margin=” margin=’0px’ padding=’0px’ border=” border_color=” radius=’0px’ background_color=” src=” background_position=’top left’ background_repeat=’no-repeat’ animation=”]
[av_heading heading=’Sandigan junks Centena bid to quash graft case ‘ tag=’h3′ style=’blockquote modern-quote’ size=” subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’15’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=” av-medium-font-size-title=” av-small-font-size-title=” av-mini-font-size-title=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” admin_preview_bg=”]
BY ADRIAN STEWART CO
[/av_heading]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” admin_preview_bg=”]
MANILA – The Sandiganbayan denied the motion that Mayor Alex Centena of Calinog, Iloilo filed to quash the graft charges filed against him over an allegedly anomalous purchase of liquid fertilizers in 2004.
Centena and his co-accused insisted that their right for speedy disposition was violated.
But the anti-graft court’s Seventh Division said the motion lacked merit.
There was “no indication in their motion and reply which illustrates how they have been unduly prejudiced by the supposed delay in the preliminary investigation,” read part of the 12-page resolution.
While they were allowed to file the motion to quash, “we find that accused-movants failed to demonstrate that their right to speedy disposition was violated,” read the ruling signed by justices Ma. Theresa Dolores Gomez-Estoesta, Zaldy Trespeses and Bayani Jacinto.
Panay News reached Centena for comment but the local chief executive declined.
In the motion, the accused said their rights were violated by “inordinate delay” on the part of the Office of the Ombudsman. It took the state prosecutors six years and five months before filing the case at the Sandiganbayan, they said.
But the prosecution argued that speedy disposition was “a relative and flexible concept, such that mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved is not sufficient.”
“Particular regard must be taken of the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case,” the Ombudsman said. “Various factors were considered prior to the filing of the case…including the gathering of various documentary and testimonial evidence.”
“In addition, the Office of the Ombudsman has to accomplish the prosecution of its ‘titanic’ cases with limited manpower. At any rate, the right to speedy disposition is a flexible concept,” it added. “Hence, it cannot definitely be said how long is too long in a system where justice is supposed to be swift but deliberate.”
The Ombudsman charged Centena and nine others with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Centena took advantage of his position when he gave unwarranted benefits to Feshan Philippines, Inc. for the purchase of 666 bottles of Bio Nature Liquid Fertilizers worth P999,000 in 2004, the Ombudsman said.
Aside from the mayor, also charged were then municipal officials Valentin Sobretodo, Meriam Celeste, Crispino Castro, Jose Rex Casipe, Melanie Hilario, Rhoda Lyn Panizales, Jose Enriquez, and Anna Lerio Caspillo, and Feshan representative Jose Barredo Jr.
“The contract with Feshan was sealed through direct contracting and without complying first with the mandatory public bidding as required under procurement rules, therefore causing undue injury to the government,” the Ombudsman said.
According to the Sandiganbayan, it was the duty of the “accused-movants” to “prove any serious prejudice caused by the alleged delay. [The] accused-movants failed in this regard.”
They “have not alleged or shown that the period it took to complete the preliminary investigation was so protracted that they are no longer able to properly defend themselves, or that they have unduly suffered oppressive pre-trial incarceration or infamy,” the anti-graft court said./PN
[/av_textblock]
[/av_one_full]
