THE Sandiganbayan has denied the latest bid of former Capiz Governor Esteban Evan Contreras and Roxas Memorial Provincial Hospital (RMPH) chief Edmarie Tormon to have the criminal case filed against them dismissed.
In a four-page resolution, the anti-graft court’s Fourth Division affirmed its July 9, 2024 ruling that swept aside the defendants’ assertion of inordinate delay in the preliminary investigation by the Office of the Ombudsman.
Contreras and Tormon are charged with one count of violation of the Government Procurement Reform Law (RA 9184) over alleged irregularities in the provincial government’s procurement of medical supplies in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Named co-accused in the information filed on March 11, 2024 was former Provincial Administrator Edwin Monares.
The case was based on the criminal complaint filed on November 25, 2021 by incumbent Vice Gov. Jaime Magbanua and members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (provincial board).
Prosecutors found evidence of unlawful splitting of contracts in the procurement of medical supplies through small-value procurement.
All three argued that their right to speedy disposition of cases had been violated because the preliminary investigation took 28 months, impairing their chances of putting up a good defense.
In his Motion for Reconsideration, Contreras argued that the allegation contained in the information does not constitute an offense and reiterated that there was an inordinate delay in resolving the original complaint.
Tormon insisted that their constitutional right to speedy disposition of the case was violated because the finding of probable cause took more than two years.
The Sandiganbayan noted that Contreras only had until July 15, 2024 to assail the Joint Resolution but he did so only on July 24, 2024 or nine days late.
“Under the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases, the Motion for Reconsideration shall be filed within a non-extendible period of five days from receipt of the resolution,” the court noted.
At the same time, it said the defendants failed to take advantage of their opportunity to point to an actual or perceived error in the ruling that would warrant a re-examination of the arguments.
“In any event, an examination of the issues raised in the instant Motions readily reveals that the same are a mere rehash of the basis issued in the previous Motions. The Motion for Reconsideration should be denied when the same only constitutes a rehash of issues previously put forward,” the court added.