THE wheels of justice turn slowly, it is often said, and they are supposed to grind just fine.
In the case of former Maasin, Iloilo mayor Marinao Malones, those wheels appear to have been rolling in opposite directions.
Six years after being charged with graft and falsification of public documents by the Office of the Ombudsman, Malones was convicted by the Sandiganbayan Division on October 23, 2020, together with private defendant Ma. Theresa Tan delos Reyes.
However, co-defendant former municipal treasurer Edna Madarico was acquitted.
But records showed that in 2016, four years before he was found guilty, Malones and Madarico had filed a petition before the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the cases on the ground that the investigation took too long, thereby violating their right to speedy disposition of cases.
The cases involved allegations of irregularity in the procurement of a garbage compactor in 2001 worth P380,000. Graft investigators said the transaction did not undergo the required public bidding which favored supplier Tomitzu Corp. represented by accused Delos Reyes.
On July 20, 2022, less than two years after his conviction, the Supreme Court granted the petition of Malones and Delos Reyes and ordered the Sandiganbayan cases dismissed.
Following the SC decision, Malones filed with the Sandiganbayan a Manifestation and Motion to Dismiss the cases.
In its resolution dated November 14, 2023, the Sandiganbayan said it had no choice but to continue hearing the cases even after Malones and Delos Reyes questioned their validity before the SC in 2016 since the High Court did not issue any injunction to suspend or halt the proceedings.
The said resolution was to decide Malones’ motion to dismiss, which was anchored on the 2022 decision of the High Court granting his petition.
But the Sandiganbayan said it can no longer act on Malones’ motion since the entire records of the cases have been forwarded to the Supreme Court in 2021 after he and delos Reyes appealed their conviction.
To address this, Malones filed a Withdrawal of Appeal with the SC, which the court has yet to decide, leaving the anti-graft court’s hands tied.
“We are constrained to simply note without action accused Malones’s Motion to Dismiss.
Mere filing of a Withdrawal of Appeal does not automatically cause the withdrawal of his appeal,” the Sandiganbayan said.
It pointed out that the SC had already acquired jurisdiction over the Malones cases after he filed his appeal and the records turned over to the High Tribunal.
Without a ruling categorically stating that the Withdrawal of Appeal is granted or allowed, the Sandiganbayan said it cannot decide on the Motion to Dismiss.
