[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 tag=’h3′ padding=’10’ heading=’Sandiganbayan junks Jamora graft case ‘ color=” style=’blockquote modern-quote’ custom_font=” size=” subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’15’ custom_class=”]
BY GLENDA SOLOGASTOA
[/av_heading]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=’custom’ color=’#0c0c0c’]
Wednesday, January 4, 2017
[/av_textblock]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=”]
ILOILO City – The Sandiganbayan dismissed the graft complaint filed against Ilonggo businessman and former Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) administrator Lorenzo Jamora in connection with the alleged anomalous disbursement of P1.1 million to a firm in 2004.
In a 10-page resolution dated Dec. 21, 2016, the anti-graft court’s Special 1st Division also cleared former LWUA acting deputy administrator Wilfredo Feleo and Renato Legaspi, president of Green Asia Construction and Development Corp.
“The Office of the Ombudsman committed inordinate and unreasonable delay in the conduct of the preliminary investigation,” part of the resolution read. It was penned by Associate Justice Efren De La Cruz and was concurred by Associate Justices Michael Frederick Musngi and Reynaldo Cruz.
According to the anti-graft court, the period of delay of more than six years was unreasonable especially considering that the issue was not complicated, and no valid explanation was offered for such delay.
“The Office of the Ombudsman’s failure to resolve the complaint with such promptness and prudence as dictated by law and jurisprudence placed the accused in a tactical disadvantage and opened the possibility that their defense will be impaired. It is also probable that aside from the anxiety and unrest that came with a prolonged investigation, the availability of witnesses and documentary evidence to the accused was also affected considering that the subject transaction took place in 2004. The Court agrees that the action or inaction of the respondents should not control the conduct of the preliminary investigation, to which the Office of the Ombudsman has clear and express mandate,” the resolution further read.
The Sandiganbayan lifted the hold-departure order issued against the respondents and also ordered the Ombudsman to reimburse each defendant’s bail bond (P30,000 each).
“The case stemmed from the P1.1-million payment to a water contractor in Nueva Ejica. But the complaint had no basis,” said Jamora.
He lamented that this complaint was used against him when he ran for Iloilo City mayor a few elections ago.
The P1.1-million payment to Green Asia was for the improvement of the Guimba water supply project in Nueva Ecija.
The Ombudsman said full payment was made to Green Asia in May 2004 despite the company’s failure to comply with the list of work for restoration.
In its ruling, the Sandiganbayan said the Ombudsman’s failure to conclude its investigation on time warranted the outright dismissal of the case.
The anti-graft court noted that the defendants’ constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases was violated.
“The Office of the Ombudsman’s failure to resolve the complaint with promptness and prudence placed the respondents at a disadvantage,” the ruling read.
Ombudsman prosecutors indicted Jamora, Feleo and Legaspi for graft in March 2010.
In September 2014, the Ombudsman finished its investigation and ordered the filing of graft charges against them.
The Sandiganbayan noted that despite the Ombudsman’s approval of the resolution on Sept. 26, 2014 the case was filed before the anti-graft court only on Aug. 12, 2016.
The court dismissed the prosecution’s arguments that none of the respondents questioned the delay in the investigation.
The Ombudsman also argued that prosecutors located Jamora only in 2012.
The court pointed out that based on the Ombudsman’s Rules of Procedure, if a respondent cannot be located, the complaint against him is deemed submitted for resolution based on the evidence on record.
The respondents’ inaction during the investigation was not a justification for the Ombudsman not to perform its mandate of resolving complaints promptly, the Sandiganbayan stressed. (With a report from philstar.com/PN)
[/av_textblock]
[/av_one_full]
