THE Sandiganbayan has junked a motion filed by former Maguindanao governor Datu Sajid Islam Ampatuan asking for the dismissal of graft and malversation charges filed against him in 2020.
Presiding Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang penned the 17-page resolution sustaining the prosecution’s stand that there was no inordinate delay in the investigation of Ampatuan’s case, contrary to his assertions. Associate Justices Bernelito R. Fernandez and Ronald B. Moreno concurred.
Ampatuan is facing one count each of graft and malversation of public funds in connection with the alleged anomalous implementation of farm-to-market road projects in Maguindanao while he was OIC governor in 2009.
In his motion, the Ampatuan said the acts that were subject of the cases allegedly happened in 2009 but the complaint was only filed by the Field Investigation Office on January 12, 2016. Moreover, he pointed out that the charges reached the Sandiganbayan only on February 14, 2020.
The defense argued that by its own rules, the Office of the Ombudsman only had 12 months for the completion of investigation in simple cases and 24 months for complex cases.
Ampatuan said the prosecutors failed to justify the number of years it took to investigate his cases, adding he “suffered serious anxiety and additional expenses” because of the delay.
The Ombudsman countered that when the original complaint was drafted, only Ampatuan and co-accused provincial treasurer Osmeña Bandila’s names were known to investigators and the rest of the respondents were designated as Jane/John Does.
The rest of their co-respondents were identified in 2017, leading to the finding of probable cause in 2018.
Counting from the date of the last response from one of the respondents, the prosecution panel said it only took the Ombudsman six months to resolve the complaint.
The Sandiganbayan said Ampatuan’s motion is bereft of merit.
“The Court rules that there was no violation of the accused-movant’s right to speedy disposition of cases. We find that no prejudice was suffered by the accused as a result of the delay,” the Sandiganbayan declared.
Invoking the Supreme Court’s pronouncements in the case of Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, it noted that assertions like “financial drain, public ridicule, embarrassment, anguish, sleepless nights, restless moments” are all vague and merely typical consequences of being charged with a criminal offense.
“The accused must show an actual, specific, and real injury to his or her rights and not just mere generalizations. 50 In this case, the accused-movant failed to describe with specificity the extent and character of the alleged prejudice he purportedly suffered as a result of the delay,” the court added.
