A MOTION filed by former Misamis Oriental Vice Governor Jose Mari Pelaez seeking the dismissal of three counts of graft filed against him has been denied by the Sandiganbayan.
In its nine-page resolution dated August 13, 2024, the anti-graft court’s Sixth Division said it found no basis in the defendant’s claim that there was an inordinate delay in the preliminary investigation in violation of his right to speedy disposition of his cases.
Pelaez said the count should be reckoned from September 7, 2018 or more than five years ago when the Office of the Ombudsman received the letter of Misamis Oriental Board Member Fredrick Khu which triggered an inquiry, followed by sworn affidavits executed by private complainants Lowell Cajes Zarate and Ricky Pagaran.
Khu had publicly clashed with Pelaez after he delivered a privileged speech in June 2018 alleging there were ghost employees in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan which the latter heads as presiding officer.
Pelaez said he never received notices or mail from the Ombudsman in relation to the investigation since he stepped down at the end of his term on June 30, 2019.
The formal complaint against him was filed by the Ombudsman’s Field Investigation Bureau in August 2022 or around four years after the fact-finding investigation started.
Pelaez bewailed the lack of explanation from the investigation panel, adding that he was prejudiced by the pendency of the cases causing him public humiliation and anxiety.
Prosecutors countered that Pelaez was mistaken in including the period of fact-finding in his calculations, citing the Supreme Court decision in Cagang vs. Sandiganbayan which states that the determination of whether there was inordinate delay only starts once the formal complaint has been filed.
It pointed out that the complaint was recorded and filed on August 17, 2022 while the information on the three criminal charges was filed with the Ombudsman on November 7, 2023 — a difference of only 14 months.
The Sandiganbayan sustained the position of the prosecution.
“The Court must deny accused Pelaez’s Motion because there is nothing in the record to show that the investigation was motivated by malice or brought to harass accused Pelaez. More importantly, accused Pelaez failed to make a timely assertion of his right to speedy disposition of cases,” the Sixth Division said.
It pointed out that the Cagang case clarified that the right to speedy disposition of cases must be invoked once the delay had become prejudicial to the respondent failing which, the said right is deemed to have been waived.
While acknowledging the were some delays in the preliminary investigation which took 12 months and 19 days, the Sandiganbayan held that this cannot be considered inordinate.
