Supreme Court: Too long, too late to prosecute Enrile, others for coco levy fund mess

• Published date: 09 February 2023
• Publication title: Business Mirror

THE Supreme Court (SC) has ordered the dismissal of the graft charges filed against former Senator Juan Ponce Enrile and several others in connection with the alleged siphoning of coco levy funds amounting to P840.7 million.

In a 52-page decision penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando, the SC's First Division held that the Ombudsman violated the constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases of respondents Enrile, businessman Jose Concepcion, Rolando dela Cuesta, Narciso Pineda and Danila Ursua, warranting the dismissal of the graft charges against them.

The Court also ordered the dismissal of the graft case against Eduardo Cojuangco Jr., Jose Eleazar, Maria Clara Lobregat, and Augusto Orosa due to their supervening deaths.

Their criminal and civil liabilities, according to the Court, are distinguished by Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code.

However, for civil liability, the Court said the government may still file a civil against the respective estates of Cojuangco Jr., Eleazar, Lobregat and Orosa, 'as may be warranted by law and procedural rules.'

If a case has already been filed, the Court said the civil action 'shall survive notwithstanding the dismissal of the criminal case in view of their deaths.'

In the case of Enrile, Concepcion, dela Cuesta, Pineda and Ursua, the Court noted that the preliminary investigation on the case started on February 12, 1990 when the complaint was filed, and terminated on October 9, 1998, when the Ombudsman approved the order dated September 25, 1998 of the graft investigating officer recommending the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of prescription of offense.

The SC pointed out that under Administrative Order 1 of the Ombudsman, fact-finding investigation should not exceed the period of 12 months to 24 months depending on the seriousness of the offense.

'Consequently, the burden of proof shifted to petitioner Republic. However, petitioner Republic failed to discharge this burden, as petitioner Republic did not establish that the delay was reasonable and justified,' the SC explained.

'While this Court has no doubt that the Republic had all the resources to pursue cases of corruption and ill-gotten wealth, the inordinate delay in this case may have made the situation...