THE Sandiganbayan’s Second Division has affirmed its ruling issued on May 16, 2023 dismissing a civil forfeiture case filed by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) involving multibillion-peso coco levy funds collected from the country’s coconut farmers during the term.
In an eight-page resolution dated July 31, 2023, the anti-graft court denied the PCGG’s motion for reconsideration filed on May 31, 2023 assailing its May 16, 2023 resolution which granted the motion to dismiss the civil case filed against Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. (Cocofed), Coconut Investment Co. (CIC), and Cocofed Marketing Corp. (Cocomark).
The Sandiganbayan granted these companies’ motion to dismiss on the ground of inordinate delay that violated their constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases.
Based on the records of the case, Civil Case No. 0033 was instituted by the PCGG against several businessmen including the late businessman Eduardo M. Cojuangco Jr. and several companies allegedly formed using coco levy funds.
The case was subdivided into eight cases in 1995 with the case against Cocofed, CIC and Cocomark going to Civil Case No. 0033-B.
Cojuangco subsequently sought the dismissal of the cases filed against him, citing violation of his constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases.
In 2021 or a year after his death, the Supreme Court ruled to grant his plea to dismiss the civil cases against him.
Citing the SC ruling, the Cocofed, Cocomark, and CIC sought the dismissal of the civil case against them before the Sandiganbayan.
In its motion for reconsideration, the PCGG argued that the three companies were not similarly situated with Cojuangco, Jr. and that their constitutional rights to due process and speedy disposition of cases were not violated since they failed to timely assert the same.
The PCGG also accused the three companies of filing dilatory motions which contributed to the delay in the proceedings of the case.
However, the Sandiganbayan held that PCGG’s motion for reconsideration should be dismissed due to its failure to raise new arguments that would warrant the reversal of its resolution.
“The motion for reconsideration must be denied. Primarily, the grounds relied upon by the plaintiff have already been carefully and exhaustively considered and passed upon in the assailed resolution,” the Sandiganbayan ruled.
The Sandiganbayan stressed that the SC has already ruled that the subject cases (Civil Case Nos. 0033) have been pending for 32 years from the filing of the original complaint and 24 years from the subdivision of the complaint, yet, the trial proper has yet to commence.
The SC also held that “the right to speedy disposition of a case is deemed violated when, without cause or justifiable motive, a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried.”
“To rule otherwise will make a mockery of the precedential value or doctrinal authority vested in the cases decided by the Supreme Court,” the Sandiganbayan said.
Image credits: Photo by Patrick Roque via Wikimedia Commons CC BY-SA 4.0
Sandigan affirms dismissal of civil case vs coconut firms
Source: News Paper Radio
0 Comments