A former justice for the Sandiganbayan said on Sunday that the earliest possible decision by the anti-graft court on the flood control controversy case could be made in nine months.
On Tuesday, the Office of the Ombudsman filed before the Sandiganbayan cases against resigned Ako Bicol Party-list Rep. Elizaldy Co and 17 others, including malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents under Article 217, in relation to Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, and violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019).
The Sandiganbayan subsequently issued arrest warrants for the accused.
First, in compliance with the Rules of Court, the judge must determine probable cause. After receiving the case information from an office such as the Ombudsman, the Sandiganbayan may then issue a warrant of arrest, former Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Alex Quiroz said in an exclusive interview on Maynila Ito Ang Pilipinas.
Having exceeded the ₱8.8-million threshold, Quiroz said the accused cannot post bail for their malversation case. However, the violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act remains bailable. If the accused surrenders or posts bail for the bailable offense, arraignment will be scheduled within five to seven days.
Following arraignment, the pre-trial will be scheduled depending on the number of issues to be tackled. It is during this stage that witnesses may be reduced if admissions are made and both parties agree on certain facts, such as whether the respondent was a public official during the commission of the crime or the amount allegedly stolen, Quiroz explained.
“What’s the use of proving the payment? What’s the use of proving the figure or the amount, e nagre-reflect na ‘yan either sa GAA, NEP, o sa payment. So those are the things—kasi makakatipid tayo ng witness doon, e,” he told the news anchor.
While a case with only about eight witnesses—four on the defense’s side, and another four on the prosecution’s side—could theoretically be concluded in just a few weeks, Quiroz noted that realistically, crowded dockets often extend the timeline.
He estimated that the prosecution and defense could each take about three months to present their evidence. With the court also possibly needing another three months to come to a decision, nine months is the shortest feasible duration for such proceedings.
When asked what might delay the proceedings, Quiroz responded that during the pre-trial, the defense may dispute certain matters, and, if dissatisfied with the rulings, either party may elevate the case to the Supreme Court. Either side may also experience medical emergencies or suffer illnesses that require treatment, the former judge added.
Quiroz said the court must assist both parties in achieving a swift resolution to the case, which favors not only the prosecution, but the defense.
“So kailangan ang husgado, tutulungan din ang both parties. Remember, hindi lang ang pagtulong ng speedy disposition is not for the prosecution, it also helps the accused when the accused is innocent. Kailangan mabilis matapos ‘yan… Ang husgado po, tumutulong sa ikabibilis, hindi para mapaboran ang prosecution or defense,” he said.
