SC clears ex-DA secretary Yap in P8-M pork scam case

The Supreme Court (SC) has dismissed graft and malversation charges against former Department of Agriculture (DA) Secretary Arthur Cua Yap over alleged involvement in a pork barrel fund scam.

In a 29-page decision promulgated in April, the SC Third Division granted the petition for certiorari filed by Yap, and reversed and set aside resolutions of the Sandiganbayan that denied his motion for partial reconsideration with motion to quash information and another motion for reconsideration.

“It is crystal clear that the court a quo acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in successively denying Yap’s bids,” the court said.

“With these considerations in mind, it strains credulity how the anti-graft court arrived at its conclusions, running roughshod over the basic tenets of the process, to the damage and prejudice of Yap,” it added.

Yap was accused of being involved in the P8 million alleged ghost livelihood projects funded by former Misamis Occidental Representative Marina Clarete's pork barrel.

He was charged with two counts of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, one count of malversation of public funds, and one count of malversation through falsification for signing a memorandum of agreement between with the National Agribusiness Corporation on its alleged implementation of Clarete’s project.

The court gave weight to Yap’s argument that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that the information filed against him was sufficient to charge him.

“Juxtaposing the pertinent allegations in the subject information with the elements of the offenses charged, there can be no quibbling that they fall short in establishing Yap’s culpability, nay, participation in the purported conspiracy to misappropriate Clarete’s PDAF allocations,” it said.

The court said that it was not established how Yap could be considered an accountable officer who exercised control over the public funds that were appropriated.

Further, the SC found there was inordinate delay in the proceedings of the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) that is tantamount to a violation of Yap’s right to speedy disposition of cases.

The High Court noted that the complaint against Yap was filed in August 2014 while the preliminary investigation of the Ombudsman was terminated in August 2017.

“The duration of three years and five months is ineffably beyond the above mentioned periods under Section 3(b) and 3(f) of Rule 112 of the Rules of Court allowing the OMB to conduct its preliminary investigation,” it said.

It also said that the Ombudsman failed to offer any justification for the delay.

“Yap’s averments hold sway,” the Court said.

“Invariably, the lengthy delay would result in the accused’s inability to adequately prepare for the case, leading to the deterioration or loss of evidence, and the eventual impairment of the accused’s defense,” it added.—LDF, GMA Integrated News