2 Sandigan justices question dismissal of charges vs Ongpin

Rappler.com

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

Anti-graft court Associate Justice Herrera argues that the dismissal of the cases constitutes an 'unwarranted turnaround' and 'a premature appreciation of evidence'

MANILA, Philippines – Raising questions of law and procedure, two Sandiganbayan justices asserted in their separate and dissenting opinions that businessman Roberto Ongpin and his co-accused should stand trial.

On Wednesday, May 28, the Sandiganbayan by a narrow vote of 3-2 dismissed graft charges against Ongpin and former officers and executives of state-owned Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) in connection with 2009 loan deals amounting to about P700 million. (READ: Sandiganbayan junks graft raps vs Ongpin, ex-DBP officers)

The graft allegations were based on charges that in approving the P600-million loan to Ongpin’s Deltaventures Resources Inc (DVRI), DBP granted it unwarranted favors. But in a 77-page decision penned by Associate Justice Samuel R. Martires, concurred in by Associate Justices Efren N. de la Cruz and Jose R. Hernandez, the majority ruled to dismiss two counts of graft filed by the Office of the Ombudsman in January 2013.

The resolution said that because there was nothing on record to support the allegations of irregularities in the approval of the P150 million loan to DVRI on April 15, 2009 and the second sum of P550 million on November 4, 2009, no cases should have been filed.

Two associate justices, Maria Cristina J. Cornejo and Oscar C. Herrera Jr, dissented.

Dissenting opinion

Both Cornejo and Herrera questioned why the case against Ongpin and his co-accused was dismissed even after the majority resolution, on pages 11 and 12, acknowledged that both informations were “complete” and “sufficiently alleged” the elements of the crime of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices under Section 3 (e) Republic Act No. 3019.

Cornejo said the motion to quash filed by Ongpin only cited the argument that neither of the two loan transactions resulted in undue injury to the government and that the facts cited did not constitute a criminal offense.

All 5 Sandigan justices were unanimous on the point that both cases only involve the second mode of the crime which was “giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference” hence injury to the government need not be proven.

But the dissenting justices disagreed on the matter of taking a second and closer look at the case records.

Cornejo argued that resolving the motions to quash should have been limited only to “determining the sufficiency of the allegations in the Information.” By delving into “extraneous matters,” Cornejo said the court already went beyond what was alleged in the information and did what amounted to a second review of the records.

The Third Division, she said, had already evaluated documents and had upheld the existence of probable cause in a resolution promulgated July 26, 2013, which became the basis for the issuance of a warrant of arrest against them.

“Therefore, if we quash the Informations because of the absence of an element of the offense but on the other hand, issued the warrants of arrest which confirmed the Prosecutor’s finding of the existence of the elements of the offense charged,…then we will be taking an inconsistent stand,” Cornejo argued.

Herrera also pointed out that the July 16, 2013 resolution (penned by Justice Hernandez), explicitly declared that members of the court found probable cause after they “judiciously examined and evaluated the resolution and order of the Office of the Ombudsman…together with the records and evidence to support the same.”

In addition, the same resolution went so far as to state that “none of the proper grounds for a Motion to Quash under Rule 117, Section 3 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure is present in this case.”

Given these, Herrera said the dismissal of the cases was an “unwarranted turnaround” and “a premature appreciation of evidence.”

This amounted to “rendering a judgment of acquittal even before any trial” which violates the right of the plaintiff People of the Philippines to due process of law, Herrera said. – Rappler.com

Add a comment

Sort by

There are no comments yet. Add your comment to start the conversation.

Summarize this article with AI

How does this make you feel?

Loading
Download the Rappler App!