FORMER Maguindanao governor Datu Sajid Islam Ampatuan has failed to obtain a favorable ruling in his appeal to the Sandiganbayan to dismiss graft and malversation cases filed against him two years earlier.
The anti-graft court’s Third Division, in a 10-page resolution promulgated last April 4, affirmed its March 8, 2022 ruling that overruled Ampatuan’s claim of inordinate delay in the investigation by the Office of the Ombudsman.
The defense argued that the Sandiganbayan erred when it declared that there was no violation of Ampatuan’s right to speedy disposition of his cases and that he suffered no prejudice from the delay.
It said because of the passage of years, the accused can no longer trace potential witnesses nor get his hands on documents that can help prove his innocence.
Ampatuan said after he was detained in 2009, the military and the PNP carted away records from the Provincial Capitol, including those that could have established the validity of transactions covered in his cases.
Ampatuan is facing one count each of graft and malversation of public funds in connection with alleged anomalous implementation of farm-to-market road projects in Maguindanao while he was OIC governor in 2009.
He argued that based on the records, the supposed acts constituting the criminal offenses happened in 2009 but the complaint was only filed by the Ombudsman’s Field Investigation Office on January 12, 2016. From there, the charges reached the Sandiganbayan only on February 14, 2020.
Investigators countered that when the original complaint was prepared, only Ampatuan and co-accused provincial treasurer Osmeña Bandila’s names were known to them. The rest of the respondents were designated as Jane/John Does.
It was only in 2017 that their co-respondents were identified, leading to the finding of probable cause and indictment in 2018.
The Court said Ampatuan’s motion for reconsideration is devoid of merit.
Citing the Supreme Court pronouncements in the 2019 case of People vs. Sandiganbayan, it noted that mere delay is not deemed violative of a defendant’s right to speedy disposition of his case if there are justifiable circumstances.
It said the accused’s rights must be measured alongside the duty of the State to effectively prosecute crimes.
“Ultimately, the duty of the Ombudsman to promptly act on complaints brought before its office should not be mistaken with a hasty resolution of cases at the expense of thoroughness and correctness,” the Sandiganbayan said.
It noted that the defendant has failed to mention even a single name of potential witnesses that he can no longer locate or to identify any of the exculpatory documents he was relying upon for his defense.
