Dereliction of the Highest Order

Hole of Justice

By Peter G. Jimenea

Dereliction of the Highest Order

In 2004, a case for Violation of Sec. 3, Par (e) of RA 3019, Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act was filed against then Iloilo City Mayor now Cong. Jerry P. Trenas, Melchor Tan, Edwin Bravo, Catherine Tingson and Alex Trinidad.

It stemmed from the failed P137M Housing Project of the Iloilo City government for the construction of 413 units of low-cost houses of City Hall employees. The project that started in 2001, ended in 2009 without even a unit completed.

But the case that has consumed the city for years seems not good for the Office of the Ombudsman. It took them five years from 2004 to 2009 to find probable cause against the above-named accused. What a lame excuse and weak defense to save face!

Probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that most likely than not,  a crime has been committed. It demands more than suspicion and requires less than evidence that would justify indictment. An unauthorized payment of P43M plus to the contractor is already embraced in RA 3019. So who are they kidding?

Finally, a year after a new Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales was appointed into office, she approved the resolution recommended by underlings of former Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez a.k.a. Monalisa, for allowing the cases at her office to lie there and die there without seeing justice.

It reads en toto; “The Information accusing Jerry P. Trenas, Melchor Tan, Edwin Bravo, Catherine Tingson and Alex Trinidad for Violation of Sec. 3, Par (e) of RA 3019 as amended, for causing the release of the P43,807,733.33 for construction works of the ICHP in Pavia, Iloilo, despite reports that substandard materials were used in the project and defects, deficiencies and lapses in the work were noted, is HEREBY SET ASIDE.”

SEC. 16, ART. Iii of the 1987 Constitution reads: “All person shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial or administrative bodies. Also SEC. 16, ART. IV of the 1973 Constitution likewise guarantees the right of all persons to a speedy disposition of their cases.

Finding probable cause is not the reason or justification of the Ombudsman for delay. Different weights cannot be assigned to different reasons or justifications invoked by the State, such as failure of the accused to follow up their pending cases with the office of the Ombudsman.

As respondent, it is not the duty of the accused to follow up the prosecution of the case. Conversely, it was the responsibility of the Office of the Ombudsman to expedite the same with reasonable timeliness in view of its mandate to promptly act on all complaints lodged before it.

A defendant has no duty to bring himself to trial; the State has that duty, as well as the duty of insuring that the trial is consistent with due process. A deliberate attempt to delay the trial in order to hamper or prejudice the defense should be weighted heavily against the State!

A cited petition to dismiss the case filed by respondent to the Sandiganbayan for unjust delay of the Ombudsman in probing his case for 5 years was docketed in “Rafael Coscolluela, Petitioner vs. the Sandiganbayan and the People of the Philippines. (G.R. No. 191411, July 15, 2013). The petition was GRANTED.

Delay is a two-edge sword. It is the government that must bear the burden of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. What if the witnesses in the case have gone away without informing the litigants of the decision? Time passed makes it impossible for the government to carry its burden.

The Constitution and the Rules do not require impossibilities or extraordinary efforts, diligence or exertion from the courts or prosecutors, nor contemplate that such right shall deprive the State of the reasonable opportunity to fairly prosecute criminals.

As vanguard against corruption and bureaucracy, the Office of the Ombudsman must have a system of officials’ accountability to ensure that cases before it are resolved with reasonable dispatch to equally expose those who are responsible for its delays, as it ought to determine in this case.

Never had here been officials so derelict and irresolute in the performance of duty than the Ombudsman and her Deputies. The case that had consumed the city for ten (10) years should have been dismissed by now. But mind you, they must also be ready to face the consequence of this act!