THE Sandiganbayan has denied the latest bid of former Misamis Oriental vice governor Jose Mari Pelaez for the dismissal of three counts of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act filed against him by the Office of the Ombudsman last year.
Associate Justice and Sixth Division chairperson penned the resolution dated August 29, 2024 that overruled the defendant’s contentions that he has not waived his right to speedy disposition of cases and that the cases should have been thrown out outright on the ground of inordinate delay.
Having failed to assert his right to speedy disposition of his cases at the earliest opportunity, the Sandiganbayan said Pelaez is now barred from invoking the same right.
“Accused Pelaez’s failure to timely assert his right to speedy disposition of cases, together with his active participation in the proceedings before the Court, would show his intention to relinquish his right to speedy disposition of cases,” the court declared.
Associate Justices Karl B. Miranda and Kevin Narce B. Vivero concurred.
In measuring the length of delay, Pelaez said the count should start from September 7, 2018 when the Ombudsman received the letter of Misamis Oriental Board Member Fredrick Khu which triggered the inquiry, followed by sworn affidavits executed by private complainants Lowell Cajes Zarate and Ricky Pagaran.
From that year, he argued that the investigators took more than five years to file the case in court.
Khu had publicly clashed with Pelaez after he delivered a privilege speech in June 2018 alleging that there were ghost employees in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan which the latter heads as presiding officer.
Pelaez said he never received notices from the Ombudsman in relation to the investigation since he stepped down at the end of his term on June 30, 2019. His first inkling of the existence of pending criminal charges came when he applied for a Sandiganbayan clearance in January 2024.
However, the prosecution countered that the preliminary investigation only started in August 2022 when the formal complaint was filed until the three information for graft were filed with the Sandiganbayan on November 7, 2023.
The Sandiganbayan said the existence of delay has already been affirmed by the court hence it has become unnecessary to discuss the same issue again.
However, it pointed out that upon being informed of the existence of criminal charges against him, the defendant opted to move for a reinvestigation instead of asserting his right to speedy disposition of his cases.
The Sandiganbayan said that to do so at this point shows that invoking the said right was merely an afterthought prompted by the adverse resolution from the Ombudsman’s recommendation to proceed with the cases.
