THE Sandiganbayan Second Division has junked motions filed by an officer of the Department of Finance and an executive of a textile company challenging 12 criminal charges filed against them by the Office of the Ombudsman in 2009 involving alleged fraud in the issuance of P73.76 million worth of tax credit certificates (TCCs).
In two separate resolutions issued last November 26, the anti-graft court denied the Consolidated Motion to Quash Informations (sic) filed by Department of Finance- One-Stop Shop Inter-Agency Tax Credit and Duty Drawback Center (Center) evaluator Cherry Gomez and the Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence filed by Filstar Textile Industrial Corp. (Filstar) co-owner and corporate secretary Grace Chingkoe.
The ruling swept aside Gomez’s contention that there was “capricious, vexatious, gross, and inordinate delay” in the investigation of the Office of the Ombudsman, which took six years before the cases were filed in court.
She said the delay was in violation of her right to due process and to a speedy disposition of her cases.
The Sandiganbayan, however, gave greater weight to the arguments proffered by the prosecution noting that the original complaint involved numerous documents, respondents, and issues so that the determination of probable cause took time.
Prosecutors also argued the accused never asserted her rights by seeking an early resolution and that she had remained at large until her filing of a motion in July 2021 seeking reduction of bail amount.
“The Court denies the instant motion for lack of merit. A careful perusal of the case records shows that the plaintiff did not violate any of the above-mentioned constitutional rights of the accused,” the court declared.
It reminded the defense that the concept of speedy disposition is flexible so that a mere “mathematical reckoning of the tie involved” is not sufficient.
“In this case, no prejudice was caused to accused Gomez. Records reveal she was given ample opportunity to prepare her defense during the preliminary investigation. Hence her constitutional right to due process was also not violated,” the court declared.
