FORMER Mexico, Pampanga mayor Teddy Tumang and his six co-accused have failed to halt proceedings in two graft charges filed against them by the Office of the Ombudsman over alleged anomalous procurement transactions with a favored supplier in 2008.
The Sandiganbayan Fifth Division, in a 10-page resolution promulgated on March 20, 2024, denied a motion filed by the defendants seeking quashal or dismissal of the two pieces of information on the ground that both were defective since the allegations did not amount to a criminal offense.
They likewise argued that there was no allegation of conspiracy, that there was an unjustified delay in violation of their right to a speedy trial, and there was a violation of due process due to the premature filing of the cases in court.
Joining Tumang in challenging the validity of the information were Municipal Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) chairperson Manuel Maniacup, BAC members Lucila Agento, Jesus Punzalan, Luz Bondoc, and Romeo Razon, and private defendant William Solis, proprietor of Buyu Trading and Construction.
The municipal government officials were accused of conspiring in the award of two contracts in favor of Buyu Trading worth P31,095 and P192,888 for the supply of base coarse materials without public bidding in December 2008.
In denying the defendants’ motion, the anti-graft court held that it found both pieces of information have sufficiently alleged the essential elements of the crime of violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
While the accused contended that the act of resorting to an alternative method of procurement does not by itself amount to a crime, the Sandiganbayan said this issue is evidentiary in nature and hence should be fleshed out during a full-blown trial.
“Evidentiary matters or those which constitute the defense of the accused must be proved during trial on merits. They are not proper grounds for a motion to quash, and thus, should not be considered by the Court,” it pointed out.
On the defense assertion that there was a violation of the defendants’ right to a speedy trial because the Ombudsman took six years to find probable cause from the filing of the complaint on January 16, 2018, the Sandiganbayan noted that the record is bereft of any evidence that any of the accused asserted their right to speedy disposition of the cases.
“Their inaction during that five-year period can be construed as acquiescing to the delay, and consequently, a waiver of their right to a speedy disposition of their case. All things considered, this Court finds that no inordinate delay was incurred,” the Sandiganbayan said.
