Sandiganbayan urged to uphold dismissal of graft raps vs. Devanadera

Former Government Corporate Counsel Agnes Devanadera has urged the Sandiganbayan to stand firm with its dismissal of the graft case filed against her in connection with the compromise agreement signed by the state-owned Philippine National Construction Company (PNCC) with a British lending entity for the payment of its P6-billion loan.

In a nine-page opposition, Devanadera asked the anti-graft court's First Division to deny the prosecution's motion for reconsideration to dismissal of her case, citing utter lack of merit.

The prosecution insisted that there was no violation of Devanadera's right to speedy disposition of cases, as the Ombudsman only took one year and five months to resolve the case—from the time she filed her counter-affidavit to the complaint in July 2013 to the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause to indict her in December 2014.

But Devandera said the Supreme Court, in People vs. Sandiganbayan, had already debunked the prosecution's computation of omitting the period of fact-finding investigation and the period for the filing of the case informations with the anti-graft court.

"Verily, the prosecution cannot simply justify the delay in the conduct of the preliminary investigation by not taking into consideration the period it devoted in the fact-finding investigation," her motion read.

"To do so, following People vs. Sandiganbayan, would render the guarantee of right to speedy disposition of case defeated or inutile," it added.

Contrary to the prosecution's argument, Devandera said she did not waive her right to speedy disposition of cases, as she raised this issue even before she was arraigned.

This, Devanadera said, has sufficiently explained by the Sandiganbayan in its ruling, stating that "the filing of these separate motions by the accused right after the indictment and well before [her] arraignment satisfactorily constitutes a timely assertion of the accused's right to speedy disposition of cases."

Devanadera, who also served as Solicitor General, was charged with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in connection with the deal with creditor Radstock Securities Inc. because it contained concessions which were disadvantageous to the government.

According to the case information filed by the Ombudsman, Devanadera advised the PNCC through letters dated January 26, 2006 and February 10, 2006 to enter into an amicable settlement with Radstock, the successor-in-interest of Marubeni Corp. relative to a loan worth more than P2 billion which was guaranteed by the government-owned corporation 26 years ago.

The Ombudsman said Devanadera approved the anomalous deal even if the PNCC board had no power to compromise the settlement amount, and the state-owned company cannot assign the toll fees to private entities like Marubeni and Radstock.

In addition, the Ombudsman said the PNCC has no power to transfer government-owned real property to Radstock in the absence of public bidding and without compliance with existing property transfer laws.

The deal, in which the PNCC practically assigned all of its assets to Radstock, was likewise deemed prejudicial by the Ombudsman to the state-owned firm’s other creditors, including the national government.

In 2009, the Supreme Court voted to strike down the deal. —NB, GMA News