The Supreme Court of the Philippines has ordered the dismissal of the graft charges filed against the former senator and no Presidential Legal Counsel Juan Ponce Enrile and several others over the supposed siphoning of P840 million from coco levy funds in 1983.
In a 53-page decision signed by Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando, promulgated on Jan. 16 and published on Feb. 8, the high court directed the Office of the Ombudsman to dismiss the complaint filed against Enrile, businessman Jose Concepcion, Rolando Dela Cuesta, Narciso Pineda, and Danila Ursua “due to the violation of the constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases.”
It also ordered the dismissal of the graft case against the late Eduardo Cojuangco Jr., Jose Eleazar Jr., Maria Clara Lobregat, and Augusto Orosa “due to their supervening deaths.”
They all passed away before the release of the final decision on the case.
However, in dismissing the case against those who had died, the court said the government may still file a civil action against their respective estates, citing the distinction made between criminal and civil liabilities under Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code.
According to the court, there was a “clear violation” of the respondents' rights when the government "failed to provide sufficient justification for the delay in the termination of the preliminary investigation."
It likewise reversed and set aside the Ombudsman’s decision recommending the dismissal of the case on grounds of prescription, the period within which legal action can be taken against the reported offense.
The case stemmed after the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a complaint with the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) on Feb. 12, 1990, against Enrile, Cojuangco Jr., Lobregat, Dela Cuesta, Eleazar Jr., Concepcion, Ursua, Pineda, and Orosa for the violation of the Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
The complaint alleged that the memorandum of agreement (MOA) between Eduardo Cojuangco Jr.’s Agricultural Investors, Inc. (AII) was unfavorable to the National Investment and Development Corporation (NIDC) as it was obligated to promptly pay AII with money from the Coconut Industry Development Fund (CIDF) but AII was only required to produce the target number of seed nuts. The NIDC was also required to use the CIDF if it fails to do its obligations.
The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the case on Aug. 6, 1998, on the ground of “prescription of offense,” prompting the government to elevate the case before the SC, which reversed and set aside the Ombudsman ruling on Aug. 23, 2001, and ordered the Ombudsman to proceed with the preliminary investigation of the case.
However, the SC issued a decision on July 4, 2004, setting aside its Aug. 23, 2001 ruling as it emphasized that the case at that time was not yet “ripe for decision.”
Long overdue
“The Court finds that respondents Concepcion, Dela Cuesta, Enrile, Ursua, and Pineda’s constitutional right to speedy disposition of the cases was violated by the Ombudsman through the inordinate delay in concluding the preliminary investigation,” Hernando said in the order.
It noted that the preliminary investigation spanned more than eight years and that it was only in 1997 that any movement or action on the case actually began. The high tribunal pointed out that under the Ombudsman’s Administrative Order No. 1, a fact-finding investigation should not exceed 12 to 24 months depending on the seriousness of the offense.
“With this case pending for over 30 years and possibly more without the assurance of its resolution, the court recognizes that the tactical disadvantages carried by the passage of time should be weighed against petitioner (government) and in favor of the respondents (Enrile and others),” the SC said.
“Certainly, if this case were remanded for further proceedings, the already long delay would drag on. Memories fade, documents and other exhibits can be lost and vulnerability of those who are tasked to decide increases with the passing of years. In effect, there would be a general inability to mount an effective defense,” it added.
