Court junks graft charges vs Umali
Credit to Author: Ma. Reina Leanne Tolentino, TMT| Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 18:41:17 +0000
The Sandiganbayan’s Second Division threw out the seven cases filed against former Nueva Ecija Third District representative Aurelio Umali, including the graft case in connection with P12-million Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF or “pork barrel” fund).
In a 25-page resolution promulgated on October 25, the court granted Umali’s plea to dismiss the cases, saying “the Office of the Ombudsman transgressed the right of accused Umali to the speedy disposition of his cases.”
The graft case stemmed from the December 2005 pork barrel allegation involving Umali and several persons, including Janet Lim-Napoles.
It was alleged that Umali “unilaterally chose and indorsed” Masaganang Ani Para sa Magsasaka Foundation, Inc. (Mamfi) as “project partner” in the implementation of PDAF-funded livelihood projects for municipalities of Nueva Ecija’s third district.
Finding probable cause to indict him, the Ombudsman instituted the criminal actions against him before the court on Apr. 26, 2019 or nearly 11 years after the filing of the initiatory complaint, the court said.
On June 25, 2019, Umali’s camp filed a motion to dismiss arguing that there was inordinate delay in the investigation, which resulted in the denial of his right to due process and speedy disposition of cases.
“It cannot be gainsaid that more than ten (10) years is beyond the reasonable period of preliminary investigation. As such, the plaintiff bears the burden in proving the justification of the delay”, the court said.
The court also said “the plaintiff miserably failed in proving that the delay of more than 10 years was reasonable.”
It added that “[i]n the case at bar, the transaction subject of the case transpired in 2005 or fourteen (14) years ago. As pointed out by accused Umali, ‘there is great probability that documentary evidence that will exonerate [him] has already been lost or destroyed and witnesses that could corroborate the defense may no longer be available or if available, it might be that their memories of what happened fourteen (14) years ago may have already failed.”