Filtered By: Topstories
News

Sandiganbayan denies ex-Baliuag mayor's bid to dismiss graft case over procurement of vehicles


The Sandiganbayan has denied the appeal of former Baliuag Mayor Carolina Dellosa to dismiss a graft charge against her in connection with the procurement of government vehicles due to lack of merit.

In a six-page decision, the anti graft court said the criminal charge filed against Dellosa—which stemmed from the procurement of 2.01 Mitsubishi MIVEC DOHC 4B11 1998 CC Active Sports Crossover from Freeway Motor Sales of Baliuag based on the Bids and Awards Committee's prior access to the said the Mitsubishi brand—sufficiently met the elements of graft which are:

  • the offender is a public officer;
  • the act was done in the discharge of the public officer's official, administrative or judicial functions;
  • the act was done through manifest partiality, evident bad
  •  faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and
  • the public officer caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference

“Accused Dellosa claims that the Information failed to allege the actual damage caused to the government or to any other party in the consummation of the offense charged. However, it must be emphasized that she is charged with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 under the second mode, having given unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to Freeway Motor Sales of Baliuag Corp., and under the second mode, damage is not required,” the anti-graft court said.

“ Considering that all the elements of the offense of violation of Section 3(e) [of the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act] were alleged in the Information, the Court finds the same to be sufficient in form and substance,” the Sandiganbayan added.

Likewise, the anti-graft court also dismissed Dellosa’s claims that the Ombudsman violated her right to speedy disposition of the case, saying such right is a relative and flexible concept.

“The bare allegation that it took the Ombudsman almost two years to resolve and file the case would not suffice. A mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved is not sufficient. This right is deemed violated only when the proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays,” the anti-graft court said.

“Moreover, accused Dellosa waited for the filing of the Information in Court before raising the issue of the alleged delay despite having the opportunity to do so during the investigation. Wherefore, in light of all the foregoing, the Motion to Quash and/or Dismiss the Information/ s is hereby denied for lack of merit,” the Sandiganbayan added. —LDF, GMA News

LOADING CONTENT