Former Bohol governor acquitted due to justice delayed

In a case decided by the Supreme Court on January 18, 2023, Arthur Cua Yap versus Sandiganbayan 6th Division and People of the Philippines (GR Nos. 246318-19), former Bohol governor Art Yap of Bohol was acquitted due to violation of his right to a speedy trial. Following this line of decision, why not apply the same to former senator Leila de Lima?

The dispositive portion stated of the case against Bohol ex-governor Art Yap states: “The foregoing disquisitions considered, the Petition for Certiorari (with application for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction) is hereby granted. The Resolutions dated December 5, 2018 and February 27, 2019 of the Sandiganbayan (6th Division) in Criminal Case Nos. SB-18-CRM-0003 to SB-18-0004, are reversed and set aside. The charges against petitioner Arthur Yap y Cua are ordered dismissed for violation of his right to speedy disposition of cases. Accordingly, petitioner Arthur Yap y Cua is acquitted of the crimes charged.”

This case stemmed from some decisions made in November 2008 concerning a car plan for employees of the Philippine Rice Research Institute of which he was ex-officio chairman. Yap was then secretary of Agriculture under the administration of President GMA. Two years later, the Ombudsman filed a charge against Yap and other officials for alleged violation of 1.) Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019, otherwise known as the Anti­ Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; 2.) Malversation of public funds and property, defined and penalized under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code; and 3.) Grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service under Section 22, Rule 14 of Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292, as amended by Civil Service Commission Circular No. 19, s. 1999.

In the main, the Ombudsman averred that the approval by the PhilRice BOT of the car plan program allegedly paved the way for the realization of a scheme that was grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government, thus causing undue injury thereto while granting unwarranted benefits to the beneficiaries of the project. Former governor Yap refuted the allegations in the complaint via his Consolidated Counter-Affidavit, asseverating that he neither had any participation in the formulation and/or issuance of AO No. 2009-05 nor did he participate or approve the disputatious HDOs. He likewise denied involvement in the execution and approval of the lease contracts between PhilRice and the employees-beneficiaries.

The Supreme Court pointed out in acquitting Yap that: under Article III Section 16 of the Constitution: All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies. Following this constitutional mandate, any party to a case can demand expeditious action from all officials who are tasked with the administration of justice, but nowhere is this guaranty more significant and meaningful than in criminal cases, where not only the fortune, but the life and liberty of the accused as well, are at stake. In criminal cases, the right of an accused to the speedy disposition of cases is a sacrosanct right that must not only be respected by courts and tribunals, but must also be invoked only in clear instances of vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays which render rights nugatory.

The Supreme Court held: Although delay is not to be determined solely from the length of time taken for the conduct of the preliminary investigation, a long delay is inordinate unless the Office of the Ombudsman suitably justifies it. The courts must take unusually long periods into careful consideration when determining whether inordinate delay exists for otherwise, the constitutionally-guaranteed right to speedy disposition of cases would be reduced to nothing but an illusory promise. Having passed upon the existence of an inordinate delay in the conclusion of the preliminary investigation in this case, the need to discuss other issues has been rendered nugatory.

Justice delayed isn’t only justice denied. It’s the greatest injustice that could be done to a person accused of a crime. Congratulations to former governor Yap. The only regret is that his acquittal wasn’t based on the fact that he didn’t really do anything wrong. The Supreme Court merely dismissed the case because of the inordinate delay of the proceedings against him. Nonetheless, it was an acquittal. He cannot be charged again for the same crime for that would constitute double jeopardy.