Sandiganbayan OKs Ombudsman motion on Pharmally cases

The Sandiganbayan has allowed the Office of the Ombudsman to withdraw, for further study, the six of eight graft cases against government officials and Pharmally Pharmaceutical Corp. executives involving the purchase of over P4.1 billion medical kits for the COVID-19 government response in 2020.

In a resolution dated November 7, the anti-graft court granted the request of the Ombudsman, acknowledging the latter’s authority to revisit and reverse earlier decisions, saying it acted within its powers in moving to pull out the cases.

“Settled is the rule that a sitting Ombudsman has the power to revoke or alter the rulings of a predecessor within the bounds of law,” the court said.

The prosecution withdrew the cases after Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla said last October 13 that there are “some details lacking” in the cases, making  a review necessary before they could be refiled. Remulla succeeded retired Ombudsman Samuel Martires.

Those cited as respondents were former Procurement Service-Department of Budget and Management Undersecretary Lloyd Christopher Lao, former overall deputy Ombudsman Warren Rex Liong, Director IV Christine Maria Lecaros Suntay, Procurement Management Officer V Webster Marmol Laurenana, Procurement Management Officer Paul Jasper Villanueva De Guzman, Procurement Management Officer VI Augusto Menchavez Ylagan, and chief of Procurement Division VI Jasonmer Lagarto Uayan.     

Also charged were Pharmally president and director Twinkle Dargani, treasurer and secretary Mohit Dargani, director Linconn Uy Ong, director Justine Garado, board member Huang Tzu Yen, employee Krizzle Grace Ukkong Mago, and financial Manager Lin Weixiong. 

The anti-graft court said it granted the withdrawal of the cases “without prejudice to their refiling.”

The Sandiganbayan also acknowledged that the Ombudsman under the Remulla leadership has the power to revoke or alter the rulings of a predecessor within the bounds of law.

“Thus, this Court adheres to the general rule that courts do not interfere with the Office of the Ombudsman’s determination of probable cause except when it acted with grave abuse of discretion. Nevertheless, though the Office of the Ombudsman may have full discretionary powers to determine whether a criminal case should be filed before the Sandiganbayan, full control over the criminal case passes to the latter once a case is filed,” it said.

The Sandiganbayan ruled that it is “appropriate” to grant the withdrawal of the cases despite its earlier finding of probable cause.

The anti-graft court stressed the withdrawal of the cases “will not cause inordinate delay or violation of the accused’s right to speedy disposition of the cases, nor will it cause double jeopardy.”

“As a final note, we reiterate that whether or not the Ombudsman has correctly discharged his function, i.e., whether or not he has made a correct assessment of the evidence of probable cause in a case, is a matter that the court may not be compelled to pass upon,” the court added.

The eight-page resolution dated Nov. 7, 2025 was written by Fifth Division Chairperson Associate Justice Maria Theresa V. Mendoza-Arcega with the concurrence of Associate Justices Juliet M. Manalo-San Gaspar and Lord A. Villanueva.