|
THE
Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed a resolution issued by
the Ombudsman finding probable cause to hale into court
a former assistant secretary of the Department of
Transportation and Communications for violation of the
antigraft law in connection with the anomalous
transaction involving the multimillion-peso Ninoy Aquino
International Airport-International Passenger Terminal
III (Naia-IPT III) project.
In a
13-page decision penned by Associate Justice Conchita
Carpio Morales, the SC en banc dismissed the petition
filed by Wilfredo Trinidad, former transportation
assistant secretary and member of the prequalifications,
bids and awards committee for Naia-IPT III project
seeking to stop the Ombudsman from pursuing the case
against him.
The
Ombudsman has charged Trinidad before the Sandiganbayan
with violation of Section (3) of Republic Act 3019, or
the Antigraft and Corrupt Practices Act, for his part in
awarding the contract to put up the controversial Naia 3
project to Paircargo Consortium, (later incorporated
into Philippine International Air Terminals Co. Inc.,
or Piatco) despite its failure to meet the minimum
amount of equity to the project, that is P2.75 billion.
The
Ombudsman cited the ruling of the SC in the Agan case,
where it noted that the total net worth of Paircargo
Consortium is only P558.3 million.
The SC
turned down Trinidad’s argument that the Ombudsman is
already barred under the principle of res judicata from
relitigating the case considering that it had twice
found no sufficient basis to indict him in similar cases
earlier filed against him.
It
explained that “the dismissal of a case during
preliminary investigation [by the Ombudsman] does not
constitute double jeopardy since preliminary
investigation is not a part of the trial.”
The
Court noted that res judicata is a doctrine of civil law
and this has no bearing on criminal proceedings. Res
judicata is a doctrine which precludes parties from
relitigating issues actually litigated and determined by
a prior and final judgment.
“The
Ombudsman is not precluded from ordering another review
of a complaint, for he or she may revoke, repeal or
abrogate the acts or previous rulings of a predecessor
in office,” the SC pointed out.
The court pointed out that the Ombudsman is vested with
the sole power to investigate and prosecute any person
or any act of any public officer or employee when such
act appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or
inefficient.
“In the
absence of grave abuse of discretion the Court has
generally adopted a policy of noninterference with the
Ombudsman’s exercise of its investigatory and
prosecutory powers, not only out of respect or these
constitutionally mandated powers but also upon
considerations of practicality owing to the myriad
functions of the courts. A review of the records of the
case does not yield any compelling reasons to deviate
from this policy,” the SC said.
The case against
Trinidad and several others was filed by
Asia’s
Emerging Dragon Corp., the original proponent of the
project.
The SC
did not give credence to the claim of
Trinidad that he was not given enough opportunity by the
Ombudsman to counter the charges against him.
“Petitioner’s argument that he was deprived of due
process does not lie, too. The records show that the
amplest opportunity was afforded him to controvert the
prima facie finding against him and to move for a
reconsideration thereof,” the SC added. |