Former Agriculture Secretary Arthur Yap has been acquitted of graft charges by the Supreme Court after it found that the Office of the Ombudsman violated his right to speedy disposition of cases when it took more than three years to conclude its preliminary investigation.
In a 14-page ruling dated January 18, 2023, but made public only this week, the SC Third Division granted Yap’s petition and ordered the dismissal of charges against him.
Yap was facing graft charges related to a car plan program of the Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice) for its employees.
As then-Agriculture secretary, he attended a PhilRice board of trustees meeting in November 2008 where the board approved the car plan program.
However, it was only in January 2009 when an administrative order was signed by the then-executive director detailing the rules for the implementation of the project.
Yap was no longer present in a subsequent meeting in June 2009 where the board determined the terms for financing the program — the car was to be mortgaged for three years to the Philippine National Bank which entered into a contract with PhilRice and its employees until full settlement of the selling price and interest.
In a statement, Atty. Yap, also governor of Bohol from 2019 to 2022, expressed his gratitude to the Supreme Court for upholding his rights.
“I wish to thank the Supreme Court for upholding my rights. May others similarly placed be benefitted by the ruling as well,” he said.
“This ruling serves as a reminder that everyone has a right to speedy disposition of cases and that justice should not be delayed,” Yap said.
In acquitting Yap, the high court did not find the need to discuss the merits of the case. Instead, the whole discussion centered on how Yap’s constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases was violated.
“It is readily apparent that the time taken by the Ombudsman to terminate the preliminary investigation in this case, i.e., three years, six months, and two days, substantially failed to meet the periods set by the Rules,” the court ruled, in a decision penned by SC Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao.
“The pronouncements of respondent Sandiganbayan (Sixth Division), as well as the OSP’s [Office of the Special Prosecutor] own admission that such a period already excludes the time spent on fact-finding investigation speak volumes.
Apart from averring that the period was reasonable considering that it allowed the investigating prosecutor to carefully evaluate the complaint and supporting documents, it is quite palpable that the prosecution miserably fell short of discharging its burden to justify the delay in contravention of the guidelines set in Cagang,” it explained.
Cagang is a 2018 SC case which laid down the parameters for determining “inordinate delay” in right to speedy disposition or right to speedy trial cases.