THE Sandiganbayan has junked a challenge to the validity of a graft case filed by the Office of the Ombudsman early this year against former Iloilo City Mayor Jed Mabilog and incumbent city councilor Plaridel Nava II.
Presiding Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang penned the 12-page resolution denying the Motion to Quash/Dismiss filed by defendant Nava for lack of merit. Associate Justices Bernelito R. Fernandez and Ronald B. Moreno concurred.
The case involved alleged irregularities in a vehicle towing contract signed in 2015.
Mabilog and Nava were accused of having direct financial and pecuniary interest in 3L Towing Services which was awarded the city government’s towing and clamping service on January 20, 2015.
Graft investigators said the contract also did not undergo the required public bidding.
The prosecution said the defendants used businesswoman Leny B. Garcia as a dummy and listed her name as owner of 3L Towing Services.
Garcia was listed as the principal government witness against the two accused.
3L Towing reportedly obtained business and mayor’s permits allowing it to operate even if did not apply to secure them at the Iloilo City Hall.
On the other hand, Nava was supposed to have personally searched around for potential suppliers of wheel clamps from China aside from preparing the contractor’s registration with the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR).
They tagged the former mayor as the one who requested authority from the city council to enter into a deal with 3L Towing and instructed Nava to draft the memorandum of agreement (MOA) between the towing company and the city government.
In his motion, Nava argued that the case should be thrown out on the ground that it violated his constitutional right to speedy disposition of his case since it took the Ombudsman eight years to resolve since the original complaint was filed with the Ombudsman Visayas in September 2015.
Nava said he suffered continuing mental anguish and was prejudiced by the long wait for the outcome of the criminal complaint.
In opposing the motion, the prosecution admitted a delay of 20 months at the Ombudsman-Visayas and three years and nine months before the indictment was issued.
However, it insisted that the defendant cannot invoke violation of his right to speedy disposition of his case since the delay is justified by the necessary layers of review required by the Ombudsman’s rules and the COVID-19 pandemic both contributing to the difficulty in transmitting records and processes.
