ILOILO City – Former Iloilo City mayor and now Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) Undersecretary Jed Patrick Mabilog has secured the dismissal of his graft case stemming from the city government’s controversial 3L Towing Services deal, while his co-accused, former city councilor Plaridel Nava, is now weighing whether to seek the same relief or proceed with the case against him.
The Sandiganbayan 3rd Division granted Mabilog’s October 10, 2024 motion to quash, citing the violation of his constitutional right to the speedy disposition of cases.
The ruling dismissed Criminal Case No. SB-23-CRM-0035 against Mabilog, but did not rule that the factual allegations against him were unproven.
The court specifically found that the Information sufficiently alleged facts constituting an offense under Section 3(h) of Republic Act No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
The case stemmed from allegations that Mabilog had a direct or indirect financial or pecuniary interest in 3L Towing Services, which was contracted by the Iloilo City Government to implement its towing and clamping ordinance during his term as mayor.
Prosecutors alleged that Mabilog helped establish 3L Towing Services and appointed soembody else as its supposed owner, with Mabilog allegedly contributing P500,000 as initial capital.
The Information also alleged that Mabilog instructed Nava to prepare the memorandum of agreement without incorporating requirements under Republic Act No. 6957, allegedly to favor 3L Towing Services, before Mabilog eventually signed the agreement.
But the Sandiganbayan did not determine whether these allegations were proven.
Instead, the court found that the lengthy proceedings violated Mabilog’s constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases.
According to the ruling, seven years, 10 months and seven days had elapsed from the filing of the complaint by journalist Manuel Mejorada until the Information was filed before the Sandiganbayan.
The court also noted that the Information dated May 19, 2022 was issued 2 years, 10 months and 21 days after the Consolidated Order. The prosecution then took another nine months and 11 days to actually file the Information in court following its approval.
“Accordingly, the case against Mabilog must be dismissed for violation of his right to speedy disposition of cases,” the court ruled.
The Sandiganbayan subsequently recalled and set aside the Hold Departure Order against Mabilog and ordered the release of his bail bond, subject to the usual accounting and auditing procedures.
Nava: ‘I was surprised’
For Nava, however, the development came as a surprise.
Nava, who is also a respondent in the same 3L Towing case, said he had previously filed his own motion to quash on similar grounds — but the Sandiganbayan did not grant it.
Despite his surprise, Nava said he would not question the Sandiganbayan’s decision.
He pointed to the change in the composition of the court’s justices as one factor he considered in understanding why the outcome of Mabilog’s motion differed from his own.
Nava is now considering two possible courses of action: file another motion to quash using the same argument that successfully led to the dismissal of Mabilog’s case, or allow the case against him to proceed toward promulgation.
The development creates an unusual legal situation involving two co-accused in the same controversy, with one obtaining dismissal on constitutional grounds while the other remains faced with deciding how to proceed.
Not an acquittal on the merits
The Sandiganbayan decision also drew an important distinction.
The dismissal of Mabilog’s case was not based on a finding that the graft allegations lacked sufficient factual basis.
Instead, it was based on the court’s finding that the proceedings took too long, violating Mabilog’s constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases.
The court expressly stated that the Information “sufficiently alleges facts constituting the offense charged” under Section 3(h) of RA 3019.
The ruling was also not unanimous.
Three justices concurred, while Associate Justice Ronald B. Moreno issued a concurring and dissenting opinion and Associate Justice J. Ermin Ernest Louie R. Miguel dissented.
Moreno argued that the delays involving the issuance of the Consolidated Order, approval of the Information and its filing before the court were not attended by malice or political motivation and could therefore be justified.
Miguel, meanwhile, stressed that dismissal on the ground of inordinate delay is an extraordinary remedy because it ends a criminal prosecution without a trial on the merits.
“The dismissal of a criminal case on the ground of inordinate delay is an extraordinary remedy which puts an end to the prosecution without trial on the merits,” Miguel said in his dissent.
Nava issued a statement cautioning against interpreting the ruling as a declaration that Mabilog was innocent of every allegation previously lodged against him.
He also reacted to claims that the dismissal clears the way for Mabilog to seek public office in 2028.
“Don’t celebrate yet,” Nava said, noting that he still has a pending petition before the Supreme Court challenging Mabilog’s presidential pardon.
“Who knows. There might be some reckoning. I still believe in justice,” Nava said./PN
