THE Sandiganbayan has rejected the plea of former Quezon City mayor Herbert “Bistek” Bautista to dismiss the graft case filed against him in connection with the alleged anomalous procurement of occupational permitting and tracking system amounting to P32.1 million.
The case for violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act was filed against Bautista and former city administrator Aldrin Cuña by the Ombudsman before the Sandiganbayan on March 15, 2023.
The complaint alleged that the payment of P32.1 million to Geodata Solutions Inc., a supplier of information communication technology systems, was not covered by an ordinance and there was no complete delivery.
Bautista argued that his constitutional right to speed disposition of his case was violated after the Ombudsman took more than three years to conclude its preliminary investigation of the charge and to file a case against him before the anti-graft court.
He, thus, prayed for the dismissal of the case, citing inordinate delay.
Bautista also said the information filed against him should be quashed as “the facts charged do not constitute an offense.”
The former mayor who ran and lost in the 2022 senatorial elections also argued that the execution of the contract with Geodata does not automatically mean that he had acted “with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence despite lack of appropriation ordinance and without complete delivery of the project.
He also denied favoring Geodata for the project, saying that a public bidding was conducted in which he had no participation because the same was within the jurisdiction of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC).
As the former mayor of Quezon City, Bautista said he relied in good faith on his subordinates, who were responsible for the preparation of bidding documents, purchase of supplies, and negotiations.
In junking Bautista’s motion, the Sandiganbayan’s Seventh Division pointed out that issues raised by the former mayor in seeking to quash the information are factual allegations that require presentation of evidence during trial.
“As such the references raised by accused Bautista will be better ventilated during trial on the merits,” the anti-graft court said in a 15-page resolution.
Likewise, the Sandiganbayan dismissed Bautista’s claim that the case against him should be junked due to delay on the part of the Ombudsman to complete its preliminary investigation.
The Sandiganbayan pointed out that delay in the proceedings is not determined through mere mathematical reckoning but through the examination of the facts and circumstances surrounding each case.
“The length of time taken by the Ombudsman to complete its preliminary investigation and to file the information, by itself, cannot be deemed as vexatious, capricious, or oppressive,” the anti-graft court stressed.
In fact, the Sandignabayan said the prolonged period in the termination of the preliminary investigation can also be partly attributed to Bautista and his co-respondents who filed at least seven motions for additional time to submit their respective counter-affidavits and who each submitted motions for reconsideration of the order finding probable cause for their indictment.
“To stress, the concept of speedy disposition is relative. Absent any vexatious, capricious or oppressive delays, and without any unjustified postponements of proceedings during preliminary investigation, it is unwarranted to conclude that the accused’s constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases was infringed,” it added.
Consequently, the Sandiganbayan has set Bautista’s arraignment and pretrial on May 18, 2023.