SC reopens P4 million fertilizer scam case vs Lapid

MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) reversed the earlier dismissal has order of the Sandiganbayan and directed the anti-graft court’s First Division to proceed with the trial of graft and corruption cases against Sen. Manuel “Lito” Lapid and five others when the then Pampanga governor allegedly purchased P4 million worth of fertilizer in 2004. 

In the 13-page decision, the SC Second Division ordered the Sandiganbayan’s First Division to continue hearing the graft and corruption case filed against Lapid, Malayan Pacific Trading Corp. (MPTC) president Ma. Victoria Aquino-Abubakar, MPTC incorporator Leolita Aquino and Macro-Micro Fertilizer Resources proprietor Dexter Alexander Vasquez.

The SC granted the petition and reversed and set aside the Sept. 30, 2016 and Dec. 13, 2016 resolutions that dismissed the criminal case filed against the respondents who were deprived of their right to the speedy disposition of the case.

It also ordered the anti-graft court to resolve the criminal case with reasonable dispatch.

The SC decision, penned by SC Associate Justice Jose Reyes Jr. said, “In line with the foregoing disquisitions, the Court finds that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion when it dismissed the criminal case against Lapid et al, supposedly due to inordinate delay.”

It said that there was no allegation or proof that the complaint was intended for malicious prosecution or that it was politically motivated, thus immediately dismissing the criminal case was unwarranted.

The SC also advised the Sandiganbayan to analyze the existence and cause of delay.

“In sum, delays become inordinate only in the presence of arbitrary, vexatious and oppressive actions or inactions that are discernible from the proceedings. No such delay attended the ombudsman’s proceedings that would warrant the dismissal of the criminal case against herein respondents,” the SC added.

In a text message to reporters, Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang vowed to comply with the SC’s directive to continue with the trial of Lapid’s graft case and resolve the same with dispatch.

“The SC is the final arbiter of all justiciable issues. In the hierarchy of courts, the SC is at the apex; hence all lower courts, like the Sandiganbayan, must pay obeisance to the SC ruling,” Tang said.

The purchase of the fertilizer was under the Ginintuang Masaganang Ani (GMA) program of the Department of Agriculture (DA) back in 2004. The Pampanga government, under then governor Lapid, purchased 3,880 bottles of Macro-Micro Foliar Fertilizers from MPTC. 

The Office of the Ombudsman’s Field Investigation Office-Task Force (FIO) investigated the procurement and on May 2, 2011 filed a case against the respondents. 

The Office of the Ombudsman’s Special Panel for Fertilizer Fund Scam came up with a resolution dated Sept. 18, 2013 finding probable cause to indict them for violating Section 3 (e) and (g) of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

The case was filed before the Sandiganbayan on Nov. 4, 2015 for allegedly purchasing the fertilizer without public bidding; Lapid reportedly certified that there was no suitable substitute to Macro-Micro Foliar Fertilizer when there was a suitable substitute sold at a lower price in the locality; and indicated the brand name in the purchase request/order, thus violating RA 9184.

Irregularity was reportedly committed when MPTC paid P4,761,818.18 (P4,850,000 less tax of P88,181.82) for the fertilizer at P1,250/liter which is overpriced by at least P1,100/liter or a total of P4,268,000 – thereby causing undue injury to the government in the amount of P4,268,000.

On Jan. 8, 2016, prior to the arraignment, Lapid moved to dismiss the criminal case, on the grounds of alleged inordinate delay of eight years in the fact-finding investigation, preliminary investigation and filing of the case that was reportedly a violation of his right to due process and speedy disposition of the case. 

On Sept. 30, 2016, the Sandiganbayan issued a resolution saying that Lapid’s right to speedy disposition was violated and dismissed the criminal case. The Office of the Ombudsman filed a motion for reconsideration but the Sandiganbayan assailed it on Dec. 13, 2016.

It also said that it found probable cause to indict the respondents for violation of RA 3019 on Sept. 13, or two years and four months after filing of the complaint. 

The panel’s recommendation was approved by the ombudsman on June 3, 2014. Thus, from the filing of the formal complaint until the ombudsman’s approval of the resolution finding probable cause against Lapid and others, the length of time consumed for the preliminary investigation was three years and one month. 

The SC explained, “‘Reasonable time’ to resolve a proceeding is not determined by mere mathematical computation, but must be ‘appraised’ from the point of view of how much time a competent and independent public officer would need in relation to the complexity of a given case.”

It should take into consideration the time required to investigate a complaint and file the information; the happening of unforeseen circumstances; the complexity of the issues involved and the conduct of lawyers.