THE Sandiganbayan has denied the most recent bid of former Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board executive director Samuel Aloysius Jardin for the dismissal of a graft case filed against him in 2023 by the Office of the Ombudsman.
In a resolution promulgated May 13, 2024 but released only last week, the anti-graft court’s Sixth Division denied Jardin’s motion for reconsideration in which he protested the delay in the start of the trial and claimed political persecution and oppression.
He likewise invoked serious prejudice due to the pendency of the case causing anxiety to his family, damage to his honor and reputation, a drain on his resources, and embarrassment preventing him from attending class reunions.
The Sandiganbayan declared the motion lacked merit.
“He failed to substantiate his claim that the prosecution of the instant case is malicious, being politically motivated. In fine, accused Jardin failed to convince this Court that the reversal of the assailed Resolution and the dismissal of the present case on the ground of violation of his right to a speedy trial is warranted,” the court said.
The information alleged that Jardin requested and received P4.6 million from a private person on March 27, 2019 in exchange for his help in obtaining a certificate of public convenience (CPC) or a route measured capacity (RMC).
The defendant was appointed by President Rodrigo Duterte to the LTFRB in March 2018 but was suspended by former Transportation Secretary Arthur Tugade after just one year. He was subsequently dismissed in December 2020 on orders of the Office of the Ombudsman for grave misconduct.
Prosecutors said the money was delivered to the accused by one Michelle Sapangila, who represented a third party applying for a permit to operate a public transport vehicle.
The Sandiganbayan held that Jardin invoked the Speedy Trial Act of 1998 too late as he had already been deemed to have waived such right for allowing the delay without raising any objection.
It noted that the accused was present in court during his arraignment on February 27, 2024 when the date for the start of the presentation of evidence was set on May 6, 2024.
“Despite being fully aware that the date set for the initial presentation of the prosecution’s evidence was beyond the 30-day period, he did not interpose any objection. He could have raised the matter of the alleged violation of his right to a speedy trial so as not to waste the Court’s time marking the parties’ documentary exhibits,” the Sandiganbayan said.
It added that being a lawyer and representing himself in the case, Jardin was fully aware of his right to a speedy trial but kept his silence on the setting of hearing beyond the 30-day limit and even participated in the marking of evidence.
The court also held that there is nothing unusual about anxiety and embarrassment arising from being charged with a criminal offense.
“Such emotional and social difficulties are typical consequences of criminal indictments. Anxiety must be shown to be of such nature and degree that it becomes oppressive, unnecessary, and notoriously disproportionate to the nature of the criminal charge,” the court pointed out.
