THE Court of Appeals (CA) has junked due to inordinate delay the civil forfeiture case filed by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) against three co-defendants of Janet Lim Napoles in the pork barrel scam case.
In a 17-page decision promulgated on October 17, the appellate court’s Ninth Division through Associate Justice Eleuterio Bathan granted the plea of Hector Ang, Nicole Tiffany Ang, and Jacquiline Ang and reversed the order issued in 2022 by Branch 18 of the Manila Regional Trial Court dismissing their motion to junk the civil forfeiture case lodged by the AMLC.
The civil forfeiture case, which was filed in February 2014, also included as respondents Napoles and several of her family members, employees, and non-government organizations.
But the CA decision only covered the case against the three petitioners.
The appellants told the CA that the delay of eight years and five months between the submission of the last pleading and the conduct of pre-trial violated their rights to speedy disposition of their case.
They also argued that the AMLC did not present a valid reason for the delay, adding that case records do not show any meritorious reason for the same.
In junking the AMCL case, the appellate court agreed with the petitioners’ arguments of inordinate delay, noting that their case did not move from June 9, 2014 to June 2, 2022, when the AMLC filed a motion for the conduct of status hearing.
“Was there really a violation of the right of the petitioners to a speedy disposition of their case? We resolve the issue in the affirmative. The lapse of eight years and five months, without having the case moved from one stage to another, is a long delay – an inordinate delay, and there was no reason provided as to why there was a delay in the case’s proceedings,” the CA said.
“As gleaned from the assailed orders, the RTC did not provide any reason for the delay,” it added.
The CA said the delay can also lead to the degradation of evidence against the petitioners.
It also noted that the long delay even allowed the petitioners to track their witness, contact her so that she could recall the details of the transactions that occurred over a decade ago, and present her as their witness.
“All told, the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioners’ motion to dismiss on the ground of violation of their right to speedy disposition of their civil forfeiture case,” it said.
Concurring with the ruling are Associate Justices Florencio Mamauag Jr. and Nina Antonio Valenzuela.