By Joseph Bernard A. Marzan
The Sandiganbayan junked a city councilor’s motion to dismiss a graft case filed against him and a former city mayor relative to a 2015 vehicle clamping contract.
The anti-graft court’s Third Division in a June 23,2 2023 resolution junked Iloilo City Councilor Plaridel Nava’s motion to dismiss after finding his claim of violation of his right to speedy disposition of the case as unmeritorious.
The Sandiganbayan averred that the process in the Office of Ombudsman’s preliminary investigation was delayed, citing the timeline which started when Nava’s now-co-accused, former Iloilo City mayor Jed Patrick Mabilog, filed the countercharge against him on September 11, 2015, until the office’s filing of the Information against him and Mabilog with the Sandiganbayan on March 2, 2023.
Despite this, the Sandiganbayan said that there was “no showing that the delays were pursued with malicious intent nor to harass Nava.
This was in line with the Supreme Court’s decisions in the cases against the Sandiganbayan, where it held that the right to speedy disposition of cases under Section 16, Article III of the 1987 Constitution is violated only when the proceedings are “attended by vexatious, capricious, and
oppressive delays; or when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured, or when without cause or unjustifiable motive, a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried.”
“While the Court notes the accused-movant’s (Nava) contention that the case is simple and not complex, and the amount of evidence is not voluminous, the Court likewise considers the prosecution’s assertion as to the layers of review needed before the Consolidated Resolution and Consolidated Order may be approved as well as the distance between the offices of the Ombudsman-Visayas and the Ombudsman-Proper,” the Sandiganbayan’s Third Division said in its resolution.
The Sandiganbayan noted several factors in the delay, including the retirement of Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales, and the subsequent appointment of Ombudsman Samuel Martires, in 2018, as well as the COVID-19 pandemic, which affected the transmission of documents of the office.
“Considering further that the Office of the Ombudsman handles other cases, as well as the change in leadership during the review of the Consolidated Order, the Court deems the period lapsed as not unreasonable,” they added.
“The Court takes judicial notice of the considerable impact that the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic had worldwide. To recall, the President declared a State of Public Health Emergency throughout the Philippines due to COVID-19 on March 8, 2020. Thereafter, Metro Manila and other parts of the Philippines were put under a series of community quarantines and alert levels because of the COVID-19 pandemic. These resulted in work suspensions and closures of courts, among others, which clearly disrupted and prolonged the timeline of the events in the case at bar,” they stated further.
Nava was implicated in the case originally filed against Mabilog only after the Ombudsman found that he sought possible suppliers for wheel clamps from China for 3L Towing Services Inc., as well as preparing the firm’s registration documents with the Department of Trade and Industry and the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
The towing company was said to be led by an alleged dummy Mabilog, who was also imputed for allegedly contributing ₱500,000 to its capital.
Nava was also dragged in the case being the author of what would eventually become City Regulation Ordinance No. 2015-049, which comprised amendments to the City Regulation Ordinance No. 2014-191 (Towing Ordinance of Iloilo City).
Nava and Mabilog are accused of violating Section 3(h) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), which prohibits appointed and elected public officials from having direct or indirect financial or pecuniary interests in any business, contract, or transaction in connection with which he takes part in or intervenes in their official capacity, or where they may be prohibited by law.
This motion to dismiss refers only to Nava’s involvement and not to Mabilog, who had been living abroad since 2017.
