Ombudsman asks SC to nullify Sandiganbayan reso on acquittal of Relampagos, Chatto

The Ombudsman has asked the Supreme Court to nullify, reverse and set aside the Sandiganbayan resolutions acquitting Bohol Rep. Rene Relampagos, Bohol Gov. Edgar Chatto and five others of a graft charge, saying they were issued with grave abuse of discretion.

In a petition for certiorari filed before the SC on August 22, the Ombudsman, through the Office of the Special Prosecutor, assailed the Sandiganbayan for issuing resolutions dated January 21, June 1 and June 23, 2016.

The anti-graft body said the court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it ruled that the SC resolution dated Sept. 23, 2015, in which the Court said the Ombudsman did not violate Relampagos’ right to a speedy disposition of the case, was a mere obiter dictum.

An obiter dictum is defined as “an opinion entirely unnecessary for the decision of the case” and thus are “not binding as precedent.”

Last January, the Sandiganbayan First Division dismissed the graft case against Relampagos, Chatto and their co-accused Isabelito Tongco, Concepcion Lim, Tomas Abapo Jr., Felix Uy and Dennis Villareal because of the Ombudsman’s  inordinate delay in resolving the complaint against them.

The officials were accused of violating Section 3 (g) of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for alleged disadvantageous privatization of the province’s electric and water utilities in 2000.

On June 1, the Sandiganbayan denied the Ombudsman’s motion for reconsideration regarding the case of Relampagos, et.al. In a June 23 resolution, the anti-graft court dismissed the case against the other accused in the case, Inocentes Lopez, Exequiel Madrinan and Eufrasio Mascarinas.

For the Ombudsman, the SC’s resolution clearly ruled that the anti-graft body did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it issued the resolution and order indicting Relampagos, Chatto and their co-accused for graft notwithstanding the lapse of 14 years.

The Ombudsman said the Sandiganbayan “gravely erred” in describing the SC resolution as an obiter dictum subject to varying interpretations, and made such characterization as the primary basis in dismissing the case against Relampagos, Chatto and their co-accused.

Referring to the anti-graft court, the Ombudsman said: “Respondent Court cannot attempt to second-guess the Honorable Supreme Court and efface the ruling that there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the [Ombudsman] to tailor fit the disposition made in the assailed Resolutions.”

The anti-graft body also argued that the Sandiganbayan was incorrect in saying that it may address the issue of inordinate delay in Relampagos’ case independent of the outcome of a separate petition for certiorari filed by the lawmaker on Aug. 17. 2015  since affirming its correctness “would render the [SC] Resolution inutile.”

“It must be stressed that the Resolution of the Supreme Court precede the resolution (1 June 2016) of the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner,” the Ombudsman said.

While the anti-graft body acknowledged that the SC dismissed Relampagos’ petition for certiorari, it said the fact remains that Court found the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion regarding his case. — RSJ, GMA News