Sandigan denies former DPWH-7 chief’s motion

CEBU, Philippines - Citing lack of merit, the Sandiganbayan has denied the motion for reconsideration filed by a former head of the Department of Public Works and Highways-7 seeking dismissal of his graft cases.

Associate Justice Sarah Fernandez found no sufficient ground to reverse their earlier ruling denying the motion to quash/dismiss with motion to defer proceedings filed by Juanito Abergas.

Abergas, who is facing three counts of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019 otherwise known as Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, claimed that his right to speedy disposition of cases as guaranteed under the Constitution was violated.

He alleged that the Office of the Ombudsman lost its authority to file the information or the charge sheet against him when the office and the Commission on Audit (COA) violated his constitutional right.

“A period of 10 years had elapsed from the time the COA commenced its fact-finding investigation up to the time the Office of the Ombudsman filed the information charging him for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019,” the complaint read.

Abergas said it took COA almost six years before the filing of complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman over his alleged undocumented reimbursements totaling to P1,804,405.49 from 2002 to 2005. He added that it took two years for the Office of the Ombudsman to resolve the complaint.

“Because of the delay in the resolution of the cases against him, he was not able to obtain relevant documents from his previous offices to refute the charges against him, which he could have done were he still in government service,” Abergas said.

In its audit, COA found out that Abergas claimed reimbursements for his travel expenses amounting to P603,459.55 without submitting necessary documents.

Furthermore, Abergas allegedly asked for the reimbursements for the extraordinary and miscellaneous expenses in the amount of P784,430.94 and actual incidental expenses of P416,515.

In her resolution, Fernandez ruled that the Ombudsman did not violate the right of accused to a speedy disposition of case. —/JMD (FREEMAN)