THE Sandiganbayan has denied separate motions filed by former Capiz Governor Esteban Evan Contreras and his two co-accused seeking the dismissal of a criminal case filed against them by the Office of the Ombudsman on March 11, 2024.
Contreras, former Provincial Administrator Edwin Monares and Roxas Memorial Provincial Hospital (RMPH) chief Edmarie Tormon were named co-defendants in a case of violation of Section 5 (a) (4) of the Government Procurement Reform Law (RA 9184) concerning alleged irregularities in the provincial government’s procurement of medical supplies in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The case was based on the criminal complaint filed on November 25, 2021 by incumbent Vice Gov. Jaime Magbanua and members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (provincial board).
Prosecutors found probable cause to indict the respondents in connection to unlawful splitting of contracts in the procurement of medical supplies through small-value procurement.
In seeking to dismiss the case, Contreras and Tormon argued that the information was defective because the facts as alleged in the information did not constitute an offense and lacked a third key element — that there was a specific intent to commit a crime.
Monares adopted and joined Tormon’s Urgent Motion to Dismiss.
Likewise, all three invoked their constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases, saying the Ombudsman took 28 months to complete its preliminary investigation, causing them prejudice because the delay impaired their defense.
The court, however, said the defendants were wrong on both counts.
“The allegations in the Information conform to the due process requirement. It sufficiently apprises the accused of the acts that constitute the crime charged against them. Contreras’ argument of alleged good faith is evidentiary and may only be proved in a full-blown trial,” the Sandiganbayan said.
Associate Justice Michael Frederick L. Musngi penned the 12-page resolution while Associate Justices Lorifel Lacap Pahimna and Juliet M. Manalo-San Gaspar concurred.
On the defense contention that there was unreasonable delay in the preliminary investigation, the court noted that the complaint was initially dismissed by the Ombudsman on February 20, 2023 but was reconsidered after the complainants filed a motion for reconsideration.
