Bohol governor hits Ombudsman’s ‘questionable’ revival of graft complaint

Incumbent Bohol Gov. Edgar Chatto and four co-accused have asked the Sandiganbayan to dismiss their graft case, citing the Office of the Ombudsman’s alleged violation of their right to speedy proceedings and the supposed ill-timing of the filing of the case.

“The revival of the case which was solely at the instance of the Office of the Ombudsman, the timing of which incidentally coincides with the election period was clearly an act of unjust discrimination and violates the rights of the accused to equal protection,” Chatto and his co-accused said in a 15-page joint motion.

In their motion filed before the First Division on Tuesday, Chatto and his co-accused said the Ombudsman’s sudden revival of the case was a “perfect example” of unwarranted partiality and prejudice against the accused.

The respondents pointed out that even the party who filed the complaint before the Ombudsman in 2000 believed the matter was already a “closed book” when the Ombudsman on July 2, 2008 dismissed the complaint for “lack of merit.”

Chatto and the other accused said the complainants did not even file a motion for reconsideration or a petition for review that would warrant the revival of the investigation.

“Consequently, as to why this case was given a special treatment of being revived after a long period of five years and without any action whatsoever from any parties in the case, only the Office of the Ombudsman may answer the question,” the respondents’ motion read.

Chatto last month filed his certificate of candidacy to seek re-election in the 2016 elections.

Chatto, Bohol Rep. Rene Relampagos and 13 other officials of the Bohol provincial government are are facing violation of Section 3 (g) of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for allegedly selling the provincial government’s water and electric utilities to a private company at supposedly very low prices.

Relampagos was the governor of Bohol while Chatto was the vice-governor when the crime was allegedly committed.

Relampagos had earlier filed his own motion seeking the dismissal of the case for the supposed lack of evidence and the Ombudsman’s alleged violation of his constitutional right to speedy resolution of the complaint.

It was in August 2014 when incumbent Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales ordered a reinvestigation of the complaint. In June of this year, the Ombudsman found probable cause to pursue charges against the respondents, which led to the formal filing of the case before the Sandiganbayan on October 23.

Chatto said what was worse was that he and the other accused were not informed by the Ombudsman that it has re-opened the investigation of the long-been docketed complaint.

“Thus, the supposed review and/or reinvestigation violates the right of the accused to be heard on the matter,” the respondents’ motion read.

The respondents further informed the First Division that the case was also filed before the Sandiganbayan even when the Ombudsman has yet to resolve their Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration, which they filed on September 22, 2014 after they have learned that the anti-graft body found probable cause to file charges against them.

“In this particular case of the above-named accused, their Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration was timely filed but was not resolved and yet the information  [of the case] was filed with the Sandiganbayan,” Chatto and the other respondents said.

Finally, like Relampagos, the respondents also maintained that the Ombudsman has violated their constitutional right to due process for supposedly sitting on the case for 15 years.

The respondents pointed out that in a previous Supreme Court ruling, the high tribunal categorically stated that a period of three years is already considered an “unacceptable” period for the Ombudsman to resolve a complaint.

“The period of time which took the Office of the Ombudsman in disposing the complaint filed on October 26, 2000 up to the time that the criminal information was filed with the Sandiganbayan on October 23, 2015, would give a period of 15 years,” the respondents’ motion read.

“Hence, there is no denying that the constitutional guarantee on speedy disposition of cases was violated necessitating the dismissal of the above-entitled case,” the motion added. —KBK, GMA News