[av_one_full first min_height=” vertical_alignment=” space=” custom_margin=” margin=’0px’ padding=’0px’ border=” border_color=” radius=’0px’ background_color=” src=” background_position=’top left’ background_repeat=’no-repeat’ animation=”]
[av_heading heading=’Sandigan junks Trenas’ motion to ditch graft rap’ tag=’h3′ style=’blockquote modern-quote’ size=’30’ subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’18’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=” av-medium-font-size-title=” av-small-font-size-title=” av-mini-font-size-title=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” admin_preview_bg=”]
BY GLENDA TAYONA
[/av_heading]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” admin_preview_bg=”]
Saturday, March 17, 2018
[/av_textblock]
[av_textblock size=’18’ font_color=” color=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” admin_preview_bg=”]
ILOILO City – The Sandiganbayan’s Seventh Division junked suspended congressman Jerry Treñas’ motion to dismiss his graft case relative to the release of funds to the Iloilo Press Club (IPC).
The motion lacked merit, according to the anti-graft court’s 14-page ruling issued recently.
Treñas claimed he was denied of his right to a speedy trial guaranteed by Section 16, Article Ill of the 1987 Constitution.
But according to the Sandiganbayan, “It bears stressing that although the Constitution guarantees the right to the speedy disposition of cases, such…is a flexible concept.”
“A mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved is not sufficient….(P)articular regard must be given to the facts and circumstances surrounding each case. This right is deemed violated only when the proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays,” according to the Sandiganbayan.
Treñas is charged with violation of Republic Act (RA) 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act by the Ombudsman.
For releasing P500,000 – a donation from Sen. Loren Legarda coursed through the city government – for the construction of the IPC building when he was still the mayor of Iloilo City, he is accused of giving IPC “unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference.”
According to Treñas, almost 14 years had lapsed from the passing of the Ombudsman’s adverse resolution against him before an Information was filed in court, and that it took the Ombudsman almost five years to terminate the fact-finding investigation and preliminary investigation.
There was no reason given for the delay, he added.
The passage of time may have affected the recollection of the witnesses that may be presented and the documents that would aid his defense may have already been lost, Treñas added.
According to the Sandiganbayan, in determining whether the right to a speedy disposition of a case has been violated these factors may be considered and balanced:
* length of the delay
* reasons for the delay
* assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused
* prejudice caused by the delay
In Treñas’ case, the anti-graft court ruled there was no lengthy delay in the preliminary investigation, there was justifiable reason for the alleged delay, accused’s assertion or non-assertion of his right to speedy disposition is inconsequential, and there is no substantial prejudice on the accused from the alleged violation of his right to speedy trial.
“Accused merely alleged in his motion that the allegations and discussions in his earlier Motion to Dismiss are re-pleaded, re-affirmed, and re-alleged in the Supplemental Motion to Dismiss. These allegations are far from being compliant to the requirement of the mentioned rule and thus, must be denied,” it added./PN
[/av_textblock]
[/av_one_full]
