Supreme Court asked to nullify Sandigan ruling on lamppost case

MANILA, Philippines - The lawyers of the Office of the Ombudsman have asked the Supreme Court (SC) to nullify a Sandiganbayan ruling dismissing a graft charge against the owner of one of the construction firms that allegedly supplied overpriced lampposts in Cebu during the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Summit in 2006.

The lawyers also asked the SC to stop the anti-graft court’s Second Division from hearing the case until the prosecution’s petition for certiorari is resolved.

Prosecutors led by Danilo Lopez said the Sandiganbayan acted “with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess or jurisdiction” when it dismissed the graft case against Isabelo Braza, president and chairman of the Board of FABMIK Construction and Equipment Supply Co. Inc.

The Ombudsman’s complaint against Braza was junked last March 10.

The charges against Braza were dismissed after the prosecution moved to withdraw its case because it wanted to conduct a reinvestigation and build up a stronger case.

In its 52-page petition before the SC, the prosecution said the right of the accused to a speedy trial “was never violated as there is no inordinate delay committed by the prosecution.”

“The motion to withdraw Information dated Oct. 15, 2008 filed by petitioner is not vexatious, capricious and oppressive for it was made in line with the prayer of private respondent and his co-accused asking for the conduct of the preliminary investigation or a reinvestigation,” the government lawyers argued.

“Petitioner did not file a motion for reconsideration of the Resolution dated March 10, 2009 since it was deprived of its fundamental right to due process which tainted the proceeding not only with irregularity but also with patent nullity,” they added.

Prosecutors further argued that the order of dismissal on Braza’s case on grounds of denial of his right to a speedy trial was tantamount to an acquittal and would effectively bar further prosecution of the respondent for the same offense.

Braza’s case is one of the seven criminal cases involving seven different contracts covering the supply and installation of decorative lampposts and other street-lighting facilities in Cebu City, Mandaue City and Lapu-Lapu City during the 2006 ASEAN Summit.

Prosecutors said the Sandiganbayan “gravely abused its discretion” and “exceeded or acted without jurisdiction” because its order to dismiss the case was anchored on the oral argument of government lawyers during the hearing on their motion to withdraw “without taking into consideration the arguments contained in the petitioner’s written motion to withdraw, and erroneously concluded that the right of private respondent to speedy trial.”

The prosecution said it was “merely exercising its investigatory and prosecutorial power under the Constitution when it filed the motion to withdraw the Information in this case without prejudice to the filing of a new one, if the evidence so warrants.”