THE Supreme Court has given the Sandiganbayan the go signal to proceed with the trial of former National Plant Quarantine Services Division-Bureau of Plant and Industry (NPQSD-BPI) chief Merle Bautista Palacpac for graft and grave misconduct in connection with her alleged involvement in the garlic cartel scam that was blamed for the soaring prices of garlic in 2014.
In a 14-page resolution, the Court’s First Division affirmed the July 24, 2019 and September 4, 2019 resolutions issued by the Sandiganbayan’s Fifth Division denying Palacpac’s motion to quash the charges against her and her motion for reconsideration, respectively.
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by the Field Investigation Office (FIO) II, Office of the Ombudsman for violation of Section 3(e) and (j) of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service against several accused, including the petitioner.
Palacpac was accused of conspiring with other officials of the Department of Agriculture in giving unwarranted advantage to selected individuals and private sector groups involved in the growing and trading of garlic, allowing them to monopolize the supply of garlic and dictating the prices of the product in the market from January to July 2014.
This resulted in the price of imported garlic soaring from P260 to P400 per kilo from its price averaging from P165 to P170 per kilo.
In upholding the resolutions of the Sandiganbayan, the Court did not give weight to the petitioner’s claim that the anti-graft court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in denying her motion to dismiss the charges against her.
“Petitioner argues that the Information does not conform to the requirement of the law as it does not state the approximate date of the commission of the offense charged. Although Section 3[e] is one of the grounds to quash the Information under Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, petitioner’s Omnibus Motion fails, however, to qualify as a meritorious motion following the Revised Guidelines,” the SC said in a 14-page resolution penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting.
“Therefore, the Sandiganbayan did not err in denying petitioner’s motion to quash the Information on the ground that it is not a meritorious motion,” it added.
The SC also agreed with the Sandiganbayan that Palacpac’s right to the speedy disposition of the case was not violated. It stressed that the petitioner failed to consider the complexity of the case and the issues involved including the fact that there are 47 other individuals implicated and charged in connection with the scam.
“Further, there are voluminous documentary evidence and numerous counter-affidavits that the Ombudsman needs to study and evaluate,” it explained.
Furthermore, the SC said Palacpac failed to substantiate her claims that the alleged delay in the Ombudsman’s resolution of the case was malicious, politically motivated and unreasonable.
“In the present case, petitioner failed to provide a plausible justification to establish that the alleged delay was malicious, politically motivated, or unreasonable.
There is only a sweeping generalization that there is a delay of three years. Consequently, the Court finds that the Sandiganbayan did not err in ruling that there is no inordinate delay in the disposition of the case,” the SC pointed out.