Sandiganbayan junks graft raps vs. Winston Garcia in 2005 e-Card case

The Sandiganbayan Second Division has dismissed the graft case against Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) former president and general manager Winston Garcia citing the Office of the Ombudsman’s inordinate delay in the investigation and filing of the case.

In a 15-page resolution promulgated on March 17, a copy of which was released to the media only on Monday, the Second Division said “it finds merits” on Garcia and his co-accused’s respective motions to dismiss the case.

Filed by the Office of the Ombudsman in November last year, the graft case stemmed from the alleged anomalous awarding of a multimillion-peso electronic membership card (e-Card) project in 2004 allegedly without complying with the requirements and procedures under the Government Procurement Reform Act.

The project, which the GSIS awarded to Union Bank of the Philippines, was aimed at providing easier and paperless transactions for GSIS members in their application for and withdrawal of loans and benefits.

Right to speedy trial

The court sided with the respondents’ claim that their right to due speedy disposition of cases as provided for in the Constitution was violated by the Ombudsman when it sat for more than ten years on the complaint from which the graft case stemmed.

“One outstanding argument that easily serves as basis for a favorable resolution of those motions is the alleged violation of the right of the accused to speedy disposition of their case,” read the resolution penned by Second Division chairman Associate Teresita Diaz-Baldos.

Division members Associate Justices Napoleon Inoturan and Michael Frederick Musngi both concurred.

“By way of peroration, the Court rules that on the ground alone of violation of speedy disposition of the case, this case ought to be dismissed outright,” the ruling added.

The other respondents whose respective motions to dismiss were granted were former GSIS vice president Enriqueta Disuanco, former Board of Trustees chairman Hermogenes Concepcion Jr. and former Board of Trustees members Elmer Bautista, Fulgencio Factoran Jr., Florino Ibañez, Reynaldo Palmiery, Ellenita Tumala-Martinez and Leonora Vasquez-De Jesus.

Two other co-accused in the case, former GSIS senior vice president Benjamin Vivas Jr. and former Board of Trustees member Aida Nocete have yet to file their respective motion to dismiss the case.

Complaint filed in 2005

In its ruling, the Second Division noted that it was on April 1, 2005 when the Commission on Audit (COA) filed a letter of complaint before the Ombudsman against Garcia and the other respondents over the alleged e-Card project anomaly.

And yet, it was only in September 2011 when the Ombudsman’s Field Investigation (FIO) finished its fact-finding investigation.

“On that score alone, it cannot be gainsaid that the lapse of six years, bereft of any reasonable explanation, categorizes the delay as capricious and vexatious, and prejudicial to the accused,” the court said.

The court said that after the FIO finished its investigation and turned over its report to the Ombudsman central office, it took the agency another four years to issue its resolution finding probable cause to file the case, thus the complaint has been pending with the anti-graft body for more than ten years.

“When the Constitution enjoins the Ombudsman ‘to act promptly’ on any complaint against any public officer or employee, it has the concomitant duty to speedily resolve the same," the court said.

"Therefore, the people’s respect and confidence in the Office of the Ombudsman are measured not only by its impartiality, fairness and correctness of its acts but also by its capacity to resolve cases speedily,” it added.

Allegation pales vs. explanations

Aside from the delay, the Second Division also ruled that the Ombudsman’s allegation that the contract was awarded to Union Bank with manifest partiality and evident bad faith “pales in the light of explanations offered by the accused-movants and the significant facts spelled out by them” in their respective motions.

The court said that based on the records, aside from Union Bank, the GSIS also sent invitation to submit proposals to existing depository banks of GSIS, namely, Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), Philippine National Bank (PNB) and Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) as well as to private banks such as Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) and Equitable PCI Bank (EPCIB).

Based on record only the Union Bank, PNB, DBP and BPI submitted their proposals.

The court said it cannot be surmised that GSIS gave undue preference to Union Bank especially as “the Technical Committee evaluated the proposals, particularly their financial aspect, and thereafter recommended the proposal of Union Bank, whose cost benefit analysis proved to be the most advantageous to GSIS”.

“Wherefore, in light of the foregoing, the Court…accordingly dismisses this case for violation of the Constitutional precept on speedy disposition of cases and for want of probable cause,” the ruling said. —NB, GMA News