Discaya, DPWH execs plead not guilty in Davao Occidental ghost project case

CEBU, Philippines – Controversial contractor Sarah Discaya and eight officials and personnel of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Davao Occidental District Engineering Office (DEO) on Tuesday, January 13, pleaded not guilty to graft and malversation charges stemming from a P96-million ghost project in Davao Occidental.

“All the accused pleaded not guilty,” Joseph Randi Torregosa, legal counsel for DPWH Davao Occidental District Engineer Rodrigo Larete, confirmed to reporters at the court on Tuesday morning.

Discaya and her fellow accused were arraigned before the Lapu-Lapu City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 27 in Cebu on Tuesday. Rappler attended the hearing where Discaya, Ma. Roma Angeline Rimando of St. Timothy Construction Corporation, and the eight DPWH-Davao Occidental DEO personnel were read the criminal charges against them.

The charges include alleged malversation of public funds and alleged violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. 

Initially, the lawyers of the accused filed motions to quash the information and arrest warrants against their clients on January 5, arguing that the case should be handled in the “most appropriate” venue, or the place where the alleged crime was committed.

Prosecutors identified the ghost project’s location as Barangay Culaman in Jose Abad Santos, Davao Occidental.

Judge Nelson Leyco of Lapu-Lapu City RTC Branch 27 denied the motions, retaining jurisdiction over the case.

To recall, the Supreme Court (SC) clarified in December that the criminal case that the Office of the Ombudsman filed against the accused was received by the Digos City Regional Trial Court (RTC) and then transferred to Malita RTC in Davao Occidental. 

RTC Branch 20 of Malita transferred the case to RTC Branch 27 in Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu, which issued the arrest warrants against the accused, prompting their transfer to Cebu.

Following the arraignment, the court scheduled the date for the pre-trial conference on February 4 at the Lapu-Lapu City Regional Trial Court Branch 27.

Preventive suspension

Paul Sato, counsel for the seven other DPWH district officials and personnel, told reporters that the DPWH had imposed the mandatory suspension of its officials and personnel implicated charged in the case.

Under Section 13 of RA 3019, any public officer facing criminal prosecution under valid information under the anti-graft law or under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on bribery that is pending in court, shall be suspended from office.

“The court also imposed a preventive suspension. We argued in our comment that the suspension issued by the court would be superfluous considering that my clients have been preventively suspended by DPWH,” Sato said in an interview.

A preventive suspension is a measure used in administrative investigations to ensure that government offices are safeguarded from undue influence and other possible harms.

Sato added that they would be questioning the preventive suspension in their motion for reconsideration.

Jurisdiction question 

Torregosa had earlier filed in an omnibus motion to quash information and defer issuance of the arrest warrants, arguing that the referral of the case to RTC Branch 27 in Lapu-Lapu City was a “jurisdictional error.”

“We feel strongly about our position that the court in Lapu-Lapu City has no jurisdiction…. We manifested our intention to question the joint resolution of the court,” Torregosa told reporters.

“Although we proceeded with the arraignment but without prejudice to our right to pursue the issue of lack of jurisdiction,” he added.

Citing Republic Act No. 10660, Torregosa said that cases of public officials with Salary Grade of 27 or higher, would be under the jurisdiction of a judicial region other than where the official holds office.

He said that Larete, who is the highest ranking official among his fellow accused, only has a Salary Grade of 25. He argued athat as Larete’s position is not under the categories listed in Section 2 of RA 10660, the cases should be under the jurisdiction of the RTC of Malita in Davao Occidental. – Rappler.com