Sandigan affirms fertilizer scam case vs Iloilo mayor

MANILA, Philippines — The Sandiganbayan has affirmed the validity of the graft case against Calinog, Iloilo mayor Alex Centeña and several other officials of the municipality over their alleged involvement in the 2004 fertilizer fund scam.

In a 12-page minute resolution dated December 18, the anti-graft court's Seventh Division denied Centeña and his seven co-accused's joint motion to quash the case “for lack of merit.”

Filed by the Office of the Ombudsman on Oct. 3, 2017, the graft case stemmed from the municipal government's purchase of 666 bottles of Bio Nature Liquid Fertilizer amounting P999,000 from private supplier Feshan Philippines Inc.

The ombudsman said the purchase was made in May 2004 through direct contracting instead of public bidding required under Republic 9184 or the Government Procurement Reform Act.

Furthermore, the ombudsman said full payment was made “within a day” based only on the representation of Jose Barredo Jr. of Feshan that the company is the “sole and exclusive” distributor of Bio Nature Liquid Fertilizer.

In their motion, Centeña, then municipal treasurer Valentin Sobretodo, acting municipal accountant Meriam Celeste, municipal agriculturist Crispino Castro, municipal supply officer Jose Rex Casipe and Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) members Melanie Hilario, Rhoda Lyn Panizales, Jose Edeso Enriquez and Anna Lerio Caspillo said the case against them must be dismissed due to the ombudsman's “inordinate delay” in its investigation.

The respondents said the ombudsman violated their constitutional right to speedy disposition of their case, when it took the body more than six years to resolve the complaint against them, which they said, had been pending since May 2011.

The respondents said that because of the unreasonable delay, the ombudsman “is considered ousted of its jurisdiction” to file a case against them in court.

In its ruling, however, the Seventh Division said the delay in the ombudsman's investigation cannot be considered as vexatious, capricious or oppressive to warrant the dismissal of the case.

The court found merit on the prosecution's justification that the complexity of the cases being handled by the ombudsman, the heavy workload and limited manpower caused the investigation to take longer than the ideal.

“In the present case, there is no allegation or showing that any delay in the conduct of the preliminary investigation is unreasonable, arbitrary or oppressive. Accused-movants also failed to establish that the preliminary investigation was intentionally prolonged to vex or harass them,” the court's ruling read.

The court said the respondents also failed to prove any serious prejudice caused by the supposed delay.

“Over all, there is no indication...how they have been unduly prejudiced by the supposed delay in the preliminary investigation. In fine, we find that accused-movants failed to demonstrate that their right to speedy disposition was violated,” the Seventh Division said.

The resolution was signed by Associate Justices Ma. Theresa Dolores Gomez-Estoesta, Zaldy Trespeses and Bayani Jacinto.