Graft case vs. Chavit Singson dismissed after 10 years

Former Ilocos Sur Governor Luis "Chavit" Singson on Wednesday was saved from graft charges after the Sandiganbayan Third Division decided to dismiss a 10-year old case against him.

 

Singson was accused of allegedly committing graft by awarding a P4-million financial assistance grant to the Multi-line Food Processing International Inc. (MFPII), despite the fact that it is neither a non-government organization nor a people's organization.

The money came from the province of Ilocos Sur's funds.

The graft complaint was filed with the Office of the Ombudsman-Luzon in 2002 by Estelita D. Cordero of the Save Ilocos Sur Alliance Foundation. In 2003, the Ombudsman-Luzon started preliminary investigation on the complaint. 

Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales finally recommended the filing of three counts of graft to the Sandiganbayan in July 2013. 

 

The Third Division dismissed the case after the state prosecutors neglected to act on it speedily.

 

"It is not fair to subject... accused to prolonged uncertainty with regard to his case. The initiatory complaint was filed as early as 2002, and to expect Singson to prepare his defense, gather evidence and talk to his witnesses for more than 10 years thereafter would not only be inconvenient, but also repugnant to what is entailed in Section 16, Article III of the Constitution, which provides that 'all persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi judicial or administrative bodies,'" the eight-page decision penned by Justice Alex Quiroz, and concurred by Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotage-Tang and Justice Samuel Martires, said.

 

Earlier, the prosecution argued that the constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases becomes available only in instances where preliminary proceedings have been initiated. But the decision further said that no such distinction exists in the constitution

 

"This Court cannot accept such reasoning for the above cited Constitutional provision makes no distinction. Where the law does not distinguish, one should not distinguish. Wherefore in light of the foregoing, the Court grants the "Motion to Quash Informations" filed by movant Governor Luis "Chavit" Crisologo Singson, and the cases are accordingly dismissed," the decision said.

 

Meanwhile, in their objection to Singson's counsel's motion to quash informations, which will effectively render the case not and academic, the prosecution explained that the delay was caused by changes in leadership in the Office of the Ombudsman.

 

The prosecution expounded that "there might have been confusion on the handling officer of the Office of the Ombudsman on how to proceed with the complain" which was "further complicated by the untimely resignation [of he Ombudsman] and the consequent change in the key officials which might have caused the office to overlook the complaint."

 

However, the anti-graft court's decision pointed out that the prosecution's reason is not adequate to explain the long delay.

 

"Unfortunately, these explanations fail to convince this Court that a lull of nine years between the amendment of the complaint on October 20, 2003 and it's consequent referral to the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon on July 26, 2012 is a reasonable length of delay. The period of nine years is an unusually long period of time for the office of the ombudsman to study the complaint and commence with the preliminary investigation, even under the circumstances described by the prosecution," the decision said. — RSJ/KBK, GMA News