Sandiganbayan ordered to continue graft, estafa case vs. textile firm owner, ex-DOF official

The Supreme Court has ordered the Sandiganbayan to continue and dispose of the graft and estafa cases filed against a former Department of Finance official and a textile company owner over alleged involvement in a tax credit scheme.

In a 26-page decision, the Court’s Second Division dismissed two petitions filed separately by Filstar Textile Industrial Corporation (Filstar) owner Grace Chingkoe and former Finance official Uldarico Andutan Jr. seeking to assail the resolutions issued by the Sandiganbayan.

The Sandiganbayan’s resolution denied Chingkoe’s motion to quash the case on the ground that her constitutional right to due process and speedy disposition was violated.

“A court may dismiss a case once it has established that the accused’s right to speedy disposition of cases has been violated. However, the accused must invoke this constitutional right in a timely manner. Otherwise, the court may consider the right waived,” the decision said.

In March 2009, the Office of the Ombudsman filed several informations for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and estafa through falsification of public documents against Chingkoe, Andutan, and other respondents before the Sandiganbayan.

This stemmed from the supposed unwarranted benefit of preference given by Andutan to Filstar and two fuel companies by recommending the approval of the evaluation reports of the tax credit applications of Filstar and the transfer of the tax credits from Filstar to the fuel firms.

In August 2016, Chingkoe filed her motion to quash, arguing that the Ombudsman violated her constitutional rights to due process and speedy disposition of cases. Her motion was later adopted by Andutan and other respondents.

“Here, petitioners filed their motion to quash after the lapse of almost six years, after their arraignment, and only after public respondent rendered its resolutions,” the Court said.

“It can be reasonably assumed that the filing of the motion is a mere afterthought, and not because they experienced ‘vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays’ during the preliminary investigation before the Office of the Ombudsman,” it added.

The decision was promulgated on October 12, 2022 but released only on January 25, 2023. It was penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen. — BM, GMA Integrated News