The Supreme Court (SC) has exonerated former Agriculture Secretary Arthur Yap of graft and malversation charges in connection with his alleged involvement in the P8-million alleged ghost livelihood projects funded by the pork barrel of former Misamis Occidental Rep. Marina Clarete.
In a 29-page decision promulgated on April 15 but only made public on May 16, the SC’s Third Division through Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao granted the petition filed by Yap, reversing and setting aside the resolutions issued by the Sandiganbayan that denied his motion for partial reconsideration with motion to quash information and another motion for reconsideration.
“It is crystal clear that the court a quo acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in successively denying Yap’s bids for the quashal of the Informations filed against him and the reconsideration of the Sandiganbayan Resolution. With these considerations in mind, it strains credulity how the anti-graft court arrived at its conclusions, running roughshod over the basic tenets of due process, to the damage and prejudice of Yap,” the decision stated.
Associate Justices Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, Henri Jean Paul Inting, Samuel Gaerlan, and Maria Filomena Singh concurred with the ruling.
It can be recalled that Yap was charged before the anti-graft court with two counts of graft, one count of malversation of public funds, and another count of malversation through falsification for signing a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with the National Agribusiness Corporation (NABCOR) on the implementation of projects funded by Clarete’s pork barrel.
In his appeal to the SC, Yap argued that the anti-graft court abused its discretion when it ruled that the information against him was sufficient to cause his indictment.
Yap said that the only overt act attributed to him is his having represented the Department of Agriculture (DA) in the execution of the DA-NABCOR MOA.
However, he added that the prosecution failed to present evidence that he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence, or evidence that he caused undue injury or gave unwarranted benefit to any private party in executing the DA-NABCOR agreement.
The former Agriculture Secretary said there is also no evidence that he committed the crime of malversation of public funds as he did not have custody over the subject PDAF funds.
Moreover, he said there is no evidence that he misappropriated or benefited from such funds or evidence that he allowed another person to appropriate the same through negligence or abandonment.
As to the case of malversation through falsification, Yap said it was not even included in the complaint, thereby violating his right to be informed of the charges against him.
He said he also did not have any participation in the preparation and submission by Kabuhayan at Kalusugan Alay sa Masa Foundation, Inc. of allegedly spurious documents to show that the livelihood projects were implemented.
In siding with Yap’s arguments, the SC ruled that the anti-graft court committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that the information filed against him contained allegations sufficient to indict the former Agriculture chief for the offenses charged.
“Indeed, the mere signing of a MOA, which, in itself, does not present any iota of irregularity or illegality, does not prove that a person conspired with her co-accused public officials in violating Section 3 (e) of Republic Act 3019,’ the SC said.
As to Yap’s purported malversation of public funds, the High Court said the prosecution failed to even establish how he could be considered an accountable officer who exercised effective control over the public funds or property suspected to have been appropriated or misappropriated.
The SC also accorded great weight and conviction to the contrary position taken by the Office of the Solicitor General as regards the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause against Yap in ruling in his favor.
Lastly, the High Tribunal said the inordinate delay in the proceedings of the Ombudsman is tantamount to a violation of Yap’s right to speedy disposition of cases, adding that the complaint was filed in August 2014 while the preliminary investigation of the Ombudsman was only terminated in August 2017.
“To the mind of this Court, the Office of the Ombudsman failed to provide sufficient justification for the length of time it took to terminate its preliminary investigation,” the SC lamented.
Editor’s Note: This is an updated article. Originally posted with the headline SC clears ex-Agriculture Secretary Yap of graft