THE Supreme Court has junked the plea of former Ilocos Sur Rep. Salacnib Baterina seeking to dismiss the graft and malversation charges filed against him in connection with his alleged misuse of “pork barrel” funds amounting to P35 million.
In dismissing Baterina’s plea, the SC’s Third Division said he failed to present proof that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed decision dated September 22, 2017 and its resolution dated December 12, 2017.
“The petition is devoid of merit and on the allegation of bias and partiality on the part of respondents, the Court finds it unsubstantiated,” part of the 16-page decision penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting said.
Baterina’s petition stemmed from the anti-graft court’s decision dismissing his motion seeking to quash the seven criminal information filed against him for malversation of public funds and direct bribery.
The former lawmaker questioned the anti-graft court’s decision, arguing that these were allegedly filed in violation of his constitutional right to due process, that the preliminary investigation conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman was allegedly flawed, and there was inordinate delay in the filing of the information.
Baterina also argued that the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the Ombudsman has the power to order a fact-finding investigation on an already completed preliminary investigation, referring to the preliminary investigation conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation.
But the High Court held that the anti-graft court was correct in holding that the Ombudsman was only exercising its investigative and prosecutorial power when its Field Investigation Office filed another complaint against the former lawmaker.
The SC also stressed that the Ombudsman “is not bound by the complaint or findings of the NBI because the latter may still subject it for further fact- finding investigation.”
The SC ruled that Baterina was not denied his constitutional right to a fair and reasonable chance to explain his side on the case, “therefore, considering the complexity of the case and the issues involved, the period of three years, three months, and 18 days is justified and is considered not to have prejudiced the rights of petitioner.”
