SC reinstates graft case vs. Lito Lapid over fertilizer fund scam

The Supreme Court (SC) has reinstated graft charges against Senator Lito Lapid and three others over the 2004 fertilizer fund scam.

Reversing the Sandiganbayan rulings that junked the case in 2016, the Second Division ordered the anti-graft court to resolve the case against Lapid, Ma. Victoria Aquino-Abubakar, Leolita Aquino, and Dexter Alexander S.D. Vasquez "with reasonable dispatch."

Lapid was charged with graft in 2015 for buying P4.761-million worth of liquid fertilizers without public bidding when he was governor of Pampanga in 2004.

Months after the case was filed, the Sandiganbayan found that it violated the defendants' right to the speedy disposition of cases and dismissed it.

READ: High-profile cases vs. 79 elected execs junked due to ‘inordinate delay’

This prompted the Office of the Ombudsman to take the case to the High Court.

In an August 19 ruling made public on Thursday, the SC agreed that the anti-graft court gravely abused its discretion by dismissing the case supposedly due to inordinate delay.

"In sum, delay becomes inordinate only in the presence of arbitrary, vexatious and oppressive actions or inactions that are discernible from the proceedings," the court ruled.

"No such delay attended the Ombudsman's proceedings that would warrant the dismissal of the criminal case against herein respondents," it added.

The SC noted that Lapid and the other respondents were recommended indicted in 2013, a resolution that the Ombudsman approved in June 2014, or three years and one month from the filing of the complaint in 2011.

They filed motions for reconsideration and were charged in court only on November 4, 2015.

Determining the "reasonable time" to resolve a case is not determined by mere mathematical computation, the magistrates said in a 13-page decision.

Other factors include the time required to investigate and file a case, unforeseen circumstances, the complexity of the issues involved, and the conduct of the lawyers, they said.

They pointed out that in another case, the court ruled that a 4-year long preliminary investigation by the Ombudsman was justified because the investigators had to study "complex cases involving the alleged disbursement of government funds."

In the Lapid case, the court said "[t]here was no allegation or proof that the complaint was intended for malicious prosecution or that it was politically motivated."

"Immediate dismissal of the case on this point is, thus, unwarranted."

Associate Justice Jose Reyes, Jr. wrote the decision, with concurrences from then-Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, who has since retired, and Justices Amy Lazaro-Javier and Rodil Zalameda. Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa dissented. —NB, GMA News