^

Headlines

Sandigan junks Bautista’s new bid to dismiss graft case

Janvic Mateo - The Philippine Star
Sandigan junks Bautista�s new bid to dismiss graft case
Former Quezon City Mayor Herbert Bautista
STAR / File

MANILA, Philippines — The Sandiganbayan has denied former Quezon City mayor Herbert Bautista’s new bid to dismiss one of two graft cases against him.

Bautista, along with former city administrator Aldrin Cuña, is facing graft charges over alleged irregularities in the procurement of an online occupational permitting and tracking system worth P32.1 million and the implementation of a solar power system and waterproofing project worth P25.342 million in 2019.

In a resolution dated June 22 and released yesterday, the anti-graft court’s Seventh Division, which is handling the first case, ruled that incomplete pre-trial documents are not grounds for the dismissal of the case.

In a manifestation with motion to dismiss filed last June 5, Bautista cited alleged procedural errors committed by the prosecution in the pre-trial briefs that it filed.

He claimed that the errors make the briefs “a mere scrap of paper” and that the case should be summarily dismissed.

In its ruling, the court maintained that the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedures primarily governs the pre-trial of the case.

“Consequently, whether or not the prosecution's pre-trial briefs contain a description of the purpose of the documents or exhibits intended to be offered, or the substance or summary of the witnesses' respective testimonies, ultimately the non-filing or lack of substantial compliance thereof, is not a ground for the dismissal of a criminal case under the present Rules,” read the seven-page ruling penned by Associate Justice Ma. Theresa Dolores Gomez-Estoesta.

“In criminal cases, the duty of the prosecution is to establish the guilt of the accused by proof beyond reasonable doubt, whereas the duty of the defense is to parry the prosecution's thrusts. The duty of the court is to then receive the parties' respective viewpoints, carefully weigh the same, and render judgment in accordance with law. In the same way that the prosecution cannot impose upon the accused how to set up his defense, the accused cannot dictate on the general strategy employed by the prosecution,” it added.

In a separate resolution, the Seventh Division issued a 90-day preventive suspension against Cuña from his role as director at the National Defense College of the Philippines (NDCP).

The Seventh Division ordered Cuña’s preventive suspension in a four-page resolution dated June 22 and released yesterday.

It cited Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, which “makes it mandatory for the court to suspend any public officer against whom a valid information is filed charging a violation of (the) law, Title 7, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, or for any offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or property.”

“Once the information is found to be sufficient in form and substance, then the court must issue the order of suspension as a matter of course. There are no ifs and buts about it,” it added.

Last May, prosecutors submitted a manifestation alleging that Cuña is an incumbent director at the NDCP.

Cuña, in response, said his suspension is unnecessary, saying he has no intention of influencing prosecution witnesses nor tampering with any documentary evidence.

He maintained that the NDCP does not have regular and usual transactions with the Quezon City government and that the integrity of prosecution’s evidence is safely preserved at the Office of the Ombudsman.

In its ruling, the court stressed that the mandatory nature of the preventive suspension must be enforced.

“As to the duration of suspension, it is settled that the preventive suspension may not be of indefinite duration or for an unreasonable length of time; it would be constitutionally proscribed otherwise as it raises, at the very least, questions of denial of due process and equal protection of the laws. The Supreme Court has thus laid down the rule that preventive suspension may not exceed the maximum period of 90 days,” read the resolution.

Associate Justices Zaldy Trespeses and Georgina Hidalgo concurred with both resolutions.

vuukle comment

HERBERT BAUTISTA

Philstar
x
  • Latest
  • Trending
Latest
Latest
abtest
Are you sure you want to log out?
X
Login

Philstar.com is one of the most vibrant, opinionated, discerning communities of readers on cyberspace. With your meaningful insights, help shape the stories that can shape the country. Sign up now!

Get Updated:

Signup for the News Round now

FORGOT PASSWORD?
SIGN IN
or sign in with