Sandiganbayan affirms denial of ex-DBM exec's bid to junk pork scam graft, malversation raps

The Sandiganbayan has affirmed its earlier decision junking the bid of former Budget Undersecretary Mario Relampagos to dismiss multiple graft and malversation charges against him in connection with the pork barrel scam.

In an eight-page resolution dated March 10, the anti-graft court's Seventh Division sustained its February 16 ruling denying Relampagos’ demurrer to evidence in three graft and three malversation charges by noting that the latter remains a fugitive and is therefore not entitled to such judicial relief.

A demurrer to evidence is a pleading seeking dismissal of charges due to weak prosecution evidence without presenting counter-evidence.

“First, fugitives from justice placed themselves beyond the pale and protection of the law, so unless they  surrender, they lose their standing in court and waive their right to seek judicial relief,” the Sandiganbayan said.

Relampagos, who is accused of conspiring with 12 other government officials and private citizens including businesswoman Janet Napoles in profiting off P7 million of public funds under the discretion of then Oriental Mindoro Representative Rodolfo Valencia, has not returned to the Philippines since he left for the United States in December 2017.

Relampagos argued that a fugitive from justice may not be denied the right to a demurrer by citing the Harvard International Law Journal article by Elizabeth Herath titled “Trials in Absentia: Jurisprudence and Commentary on the Judgment in Chief Prosecutor v. Abul Kalam Azad in the Bangladesh International Crimes Tribunal.”

The Sandiganbayan, however, ruled that such argument does not hold weight because the cited article only pertains to the necessity of an accused’s legal representation in a trial in absentia.

“The court finds no relation between the accused’s theory and his supposed legal basis  therefore. The matter of accused Relampagos’s legal representation during trial in absentia is currently not in issue,” it said.

The anti-graft court said that Relampagos continues to be represented by his counsel even if the former Budget official reneged on his bail.

Still, Relampagos insisted that denying his demurrer to evidence violates his constitutional right to be presumed innocent and speedy disposition of the case, an argument also shut down by the anti-graft court.

“Denying the demurrer to evidence violates neither an  accused’s right to be presumed innocent nor his right to a speedy disposition of his case. If there is anyone whose action impacts on his right to be presumed innocent, it is accused Relampagos himself when he jumped bail," the Sandiganbayan said.

“It is well established in this jurisdiction that flight is the evasion of the course of  justice by voluntarily withdrawing oneself in order to avoid arrest, detention  or the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings. It is considered an indication of guilt. In the instant case, denying accused Relampagos’s demurrer on the ground that he is a fugitive from justice and stating that judgment will be rendered after conclusion of the trial in absentia are in accordance with law and prevailing jurisprudence, as discussed in the assailed Resolution,” the anti-graft court added.

The Sandiganbayan also said Relampagos cannot argue that the Seventh Division handling the case should grant his demurrer to evidence just because the Fourth Division granted his demurrer to evidence and subsequently cleared him in the 11 counts of graft charges filed against him involving around P107 million of former Masbate lawmaker Rizalina Seachon Lanete’s PDAF.

The anti-graft court said that the principle of stare decisis involved by Relampagos is not applicable in this case because stare decisis requires courts to follow a rule already established by a final decision of the Supreme Court.

“We find no merit in accused Relampagos’s reasoning that  this court should grant his demurrer notwithstanding that he is currently a  fugitive from justice, just because another Division of the Sandiganbayan did so. Evidently, the principle of stare decisis does not apply herein," it said.

“It is clear from a cursory comparison of the said Resolution attached by accused Relampagos in his Motion and the instant case that the parties and the subject matter are different.  More importantly, it is obvious that the Resolution was not penned by the Supreme Court, but by another division of the Sandiganbayan. Wherefore, the Motion for Reconsideration of accused Mario L. Relampagos is denied for lack of merit,” it added.—AOL, GMA Integrated News