MANILA - The country’s anti-graft court has affirmed a graft charge against former Negros Occidental governor and now Sugar Regulatory Administrator Rafael L. Coscolluela and four others accused of alleged fraud in the purchase of P20 million worth of medical and agricultural supplies in 2001.

The Sandiganbayan First Division affirmed the graft charge filed by the Office of the Ombudsman last June 22.

Associate Justice and division chairman Norberto Y. Geraldez, who penned the 4-page resolution concurred in by Associate Justices Rodolfo A. Ponferrada and Alexander G. Gesmundo threw out the defendant’s claims that they were not afforded due process. The accused claimed they were not afforded due process since the preliminary investigation was not done properly and that there was inordinate delay in the resolution of the complaint against them.

Named co-defendants with Coscolluella in the graft charge were former provincial health officer Ernesto P Malvas, special projects management office (SPMO) head Edwin P. Nacionales, SPMO officer III Jose Maria G. Amugod and businessman Romeo B. Chan of Venmilyn Enterprises, contractor-supplier for the provincial government.

Coscolluela and the 4 others were accused of failure to conduct a public bidding when a supply contract was awarded to Venmilyn Enterprises.

Investigators said 3 anesthesia machines acquired at P1.2 million each were available from another supplier at only P320,000 each.

The investigators also said purchase orders for the medical and agricultural equipment were signed June 15, 2001 but the bills of lading for the shipment of the machineries were already drawn between May 17 to June 9, 2001.

The defendants said however they were denied their right to speedy disposition of their case since the original complaint was filed back in 2001 by Dr. Patricio Y. Tan of the People’s Graftwatch but the information was only filed this year.

They also argued that the Ombudsman had overstepped its authority. They said the complaint merely challenged the procurement procedure and did not mention any criminal liability. They also claimed that contended that preliminary investigation was both improper and incomplete.

The Sandiganbayan First Division however said it found no proof that there was ‘vexatious, capricious and oppressive delay’ since the Office of the Ombudsman for the Visayas had come up with a recommendation for indictment in March 2003 – less than two years after the complaint was filed.

“Moreover, while it is also undisputed that it took the Office of the Ombudsman a period of more than six years …to approve and decide the filing of the information, …such period of delay is not ‘inordinate’ because the information underwent careful review and revision,” the resolution of the anti-graft court said.

The Sandiganbayan division also said that the Ombudsman’s powers as an investigatory body is not bound by what was contained in the complaint.

On the allegation of improper or incomplete preliminary investigation, the anti-graft court pointed out that the process is not guaranteed by the Constitution. It said it is a personal right and is not a valid ground to seek quashal of a criminal information.

“Besides, the record of the Ombudsman show that the accused-movants have filed their respective counter-affidavits during the preliminary investigation of the case; hence, there is no doubt that they were afforded and given a fair opportunity to be heard,” the resolution noted.