The Supreme Court has ordered the dismissal of the graft charges filed against former Senator and now chief presidential legal counsel Juan Ponce Enrile and several others in connection with the alleged misuse of coconut levy funds amounting to P840.7 million.
In a 52-page decision penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando, the SC’s First Division ruled that the Office of the Ombudsman violated the constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases of respondents Enrile, businessman Jose Concepcion, Rolando dela Cuesta, Narciso Pineda and Danila Ursua, warranting the dismissal of the graft charges against them.
The SC also ordered the dismissal of the graft case against Eduardo Cojuangco Jr., Jose Eleazar, Maria Clara Lobregat, and Augusto Orosa due to their supervening deaths.
The SC said criminal and civil liabilities are distinguished by Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code.
For civil liability, the high court said the government may still file civil cases against the respective estates of Cojuangco Jr., Eleazar, Lobregat and Orosa, “as may be warranted by law and procedural rules.”
If a case has already been filed, the high tribunal said the civil action “shall survive notwithstanding the dismissal of the criminal case in view of their deaths.”
In the case of Enrile, Concepcion, Dela Cuesta, Pineda and Ursua, the SC noted that the preliminary investigation on the case started on February 12, 1990 when the complaint was filed, and terminated on October 9, 1998 when the Ombudsman approved the order dated September 25, 1998 of the graft investigating officer recommending the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of prescription of offense.
The SC pointed out that under Administrative Order 1 of the Ombudsman, a fact-finding investigation should not exceed the period of 12 months to 24 months depending on the seriousness of the offense.
“Consequently, the burden of proof shifted to petitioner Republic. However, petitioner Republic failed to discharge this burden, as petitioner Republic did not establish that the delay was reasonable and justified,” the SC said.
“While this Court has no doubt that the Republic had all the resources to pursue cases of corruption and ill-gotten wealth , the inordinate delay in this case may have made the situation worse for respondents.”
“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 Republic and in favor of the respondents. Certainly, if this case were remanded for further proceedings, the already long delay would drag on longer. 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,” the High Court added.
The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) had alleged that Cojuangco took advantage of his close relationship with then President Ferdinand Marcos for his own personal and business interests through the issuance of favorable decrees.
The complaint accused Cojuangco Jr. of causing the government to enter into a contract with him, through the state-run National Investment and Development Corporation (NIDC) through its corporation AII, under terms and conditions grossly disadvantageous to the government and in conspiracy with the other respondents who were then members of the UCPB Board of Directors.