Agnes Devanadera (VINCE NONATO / INQUIRER FILE PHOTO)
State prosecutors appealed the dismissal of the graft case of former government corporate counsel Agnes Devanadera, questioning the Sandiganbayan鈥檚 finding of inordinate delay in the Ombudsman鈥檚 investigation of the allegedly anomalous Philippine National Construction Corp.鈥檚 (PNCC) P6.1-billion debt settlement.
In its motion for reconsideration filed before the anti-graft court鈥檚 First Division, the Office of the Special Prosecutor said the court 鈥済rievously erred鈥� in dismissing the graft charge filed against Devanadera for advising the PNCC to take on an allegedly disadvantageous compromise agreement with British lender Radstock Securities Ltd. in 2006.
搁贰础顿:听Devanadera beats raps
The court granted Devanadera鈥檚 motion to dismiss the case due to inordinate delay, citing the violation on the accused鈥檚 constitutional right to speedy disposition of her case, which took the Ombudsman six years to complete in its preliminary investigation鈥攆rom Oct. 2010 when the complaint was filed to Nov. 2016 when the information was filed before the court.
But the panel said the Ombudsman only took one year and five months to resolve the preliminary investigation of the case鈥攆rom the filing of Devanadera鈥檚 counter-affidavit in July 2013 to the Ombudsman鈥檚 resolution indicting Devanadera in Dec. 2014.
The prosecution maintained that the fact-finding investigation should not be part of the reckoning period in the preliminary investigation.
鈥淭he prosecution maintains that there is no inordinate delay in the instant case and hereby humbly moves that the aforesaid assailed resolution be reconsidered,鈥� the prosecution said.
搁贰础顿:听Prosecutors on Devanadera motion to junk graft case: Why only now?听
The prosecution said the Ombudsman only took 10 months to resolve its preliminary investigation.
The Ombudsman said if there is any delay in the investigation, it is only for a period of two years and nine months, from the date of the submission for resolution of the case, to the filing of the information in court.
鈥淭his can hardly be considered inordinate or vexatious considering that there were 25 respondents in these cases, most of them raising various defenses and arguments in their counter-affidavits and motions for reconsiderations,鈥� the prosecution said.
The prosecution also justified any delay with the deluge of cases before the Office of the Ombudsman, saying when the complaint against Devanadera was filed in 2010, there were 20,217 pending cases and another 7,926 newly instituted cases before the office.
The prosecution also noted that from the time the case has been deemed submitted for resolution before the Ombudsman, Devanadera 鈥渄id not demand any expeditious action thereon.鈥�
搁贰础顿:听Devanadera to invoke 鈥榰nreasonable delays鈥� in plea to junk graft case
鈥淚n fact, accused Devanadera had not been subjected to any aggravating or annoying action to vex or harm her coming from the investigator of the Office of the Ombudsman,鈥� the prosecution said.
The dismissal of Devanadera鈥檚 case due to听inordinate听delay听adds to the increasing number of criminal cases junked by the Sandiganbayan due to this doctrine now legally questioned by the听Ombudsman听before the Supreme Court.
搁贰础顿:听Define 鈥榠nordinate听delay,鈥櫶齇mbudsman听asks SC听|听Ombudsman听may refile graft cases if SC redefines 鈥榠nordinate听delay鈥櫶�
Ombudsman听Conchita Carpio Morales has lamented the spate of dismissed cases due to this doctrine, a jurisprudence set by the Supreme Court.
The anti-graft court usually accounts for the period starting from the filing of complaint, the fact-finding, the preliminary investigation, until the filing of complaint.
But听Ombudsman听Morales said the period of investigation should only cover the preliminary stage, where the respondents are already asked to file their counter-affidavits to the charges imputed against them. JPV/rga
RELATED STORIES
Devanadera asks Sandiganbayan to junk Radstock graft case
Ex-Arroyo gov鈥檛 official charged with graft in P6B deal听