SC gives green light for trial of Lapid
Credit to Author: Jomar Canlas, TMT| Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 16:45:09 +0000
The Supreme Court (SC) on Thursday allowed the Sandiganbayan to proceed with the trial of Sen. Manuel “Lito” Lapid and three others in connection with the P728-million fertilizer fund scam.
In a 13-page ruling penned by Associate Justice Jose Reyes Jr. dated August 19, but released just recently, Sandiganbayan’s Second Division set aside the resolution issued by the anti-graft court on Sept. 30, 2016 and Dec. 13, 2016 which dismissed the graft charges against Lapid.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Sandiganbayan abused its discretion in dropping the case. Lapid had argued there was inordinate delay on the part of the Office of the Ombudsman in launching a fact-finding investigation against him.
The case stemmed from the questionable purchase of liquid fertilizer using P728 million drawn from the Department of Agriculture’s Ginintuang Masaganang Ani Program. Lapid was governor of Pampanga at the time.
The high court also ordered the prosecution and continuous trial of Malayan Pacific Trading Corporation (MPTC) officials Ma. Victoria Aquino Abubakar and Leolita Aquino and Macro-Micro Fertilizer Resources proprietor Alexander SD Vasquez.
The three were charged over the purchase of allegedly overpriced liquid fertilizer, which totaled to P4.76 million from MPTC.
They were also charged over the lack of public bidding after Lapid certified there were no suitable substitutes to the Macro-Micro Foliar Fertilizer they offered, when in fact there was a suitable substitute available at a much lower price.
The Sandiganbayan exonerated Lapid, saying he was denied the right to a speedy disposition of his cases.
The case started on May 2011 when it reached the Field Investigation Office-Task Force Abono of the Ombudsman. But the anti-graft court noticed that there was no proof that the Ombudsman conducted a fact-finding investigation as earlier as 2006.
The Office of the Ombudsman found prima facie evidence to indict Lapid on Sept. 18, 2013, or two years and four months after the complaint was filed.
“Thus, from the filing of the formal complaint until the Ombudsman’s approval of the resolution finding probable cause against Lapid, et al, the length of time consumed for the preliminary investigation was three years and one month,” the decision read.
“In sum, delay becomes inordinate only in the presence of arbitrary, vexatious and oppressive actions or inactions that are discernible from the proceedings. No such delay attended the Ombudsman’s proceedings that would warrant the dismissal of the criminal case against herein respondents,” it added.