SC orders dismissal of 4 PDAF cases of ex-Agri sec Yap | ABS-CBN
ADVERTISEMENT
Welcome, Kapamilya! We use cookies to improve your browsing experience. Continuing to use this site means you agree to our use of cookies. Tell me more!
SC orders dismissal of 4 PDAF cases of ex-Agri sec Yap
SC orders dismissal of 4 PDAF cases of ex-Agri sec Yap
The Supreme Court building in Padre Faura, Manila on August 24, 2022. George Calvelo, ABS-CBN News/File
The Supreme Court building in Padre Faura, Manila on August 24, 2022. George Calvelo, ABS-CBN News/FileMANILA — The Supreme Court has ordered the Sandiganbayan to dismiss all cases against former Department of Agriculture secretary Arthur Yap in relation to the Priority Development Assistance Funds (PDAF) scam, saying the anti-graft court committed grave abuse of discretion in proceeding wit the case.
MANILA — The Supreme Court has ordered the Sandiganbayan to dismiss all cases against former Department of Agriculture secretary Arthur Yap in relation to the Priority Development Assistance Funds (PDAF) scam, saying the anti-graft court committed grave abuse of discretion in proceeding wit the case.
In a decision promulgated by the SC 3rd Division last April 15, the court granted the petition for certiorari filed by Yap and ordered the dismissal of two counts of graft, one count of malversation of public funds, and one count of malversation through falsification of public documents.
In a decision promulgated by the SC 3rd Division last April 15, the court granted the petition for certiorari filed by Yap and ordered the dismissal of two counts of graft, one count of malversation of public funds, and one count of malversation through falsification of public documents.
In the information filed by the Ombudsman before the Sandiganbayan in 2017, Yap and former Misamis Occidental 1st District Rep. Marina Clarete were accused of misusing PDAF totaling P7.8 million in 2009.
In the information filed by the Ombudsman before the Sandiganbayan in 2017, Yap and former Misamis Occidental 1st District Rep. Marina Clarete were accused of misusing PDAF totaling P7.8 million in 2009.
The funds were supposedly used for "ghost" projects such as distribution of livelihood kits to qualified beneficiaries.
The funds were supposedly used for "ghost" projects such as distribution of livelihood kits to qualified beneficiaries.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Supreme Court said the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in holding that the Information, or formal charges, filed against Yap contained allegations sufficient to indict him for the offenses charged.
The Supreme Court said the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in holding that the Information, or formal charges, filed against Yap contained allegations sufficient to indict him for the offenses charged.
The high court noted that Yap’s act of signing a memorandum of agreement between the DA and the implementing agency National Agribusiness Corporation did not show partiality or negligence nor give unwarranted benefits to his co-accused.
The high court noted that Yap’s act of signing a memorandum of agreement between the DA and the implementing agency National Agribusiness Corporation did not show partiality or negligence nor give unwarranted benefits to his co-accused.
“Yap’s well-taken asseveration passes judicial muster,” the Supreme Court said in the decision penned by Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao.
“Yap’s well-taken asseveration passes judicial muster,” the Supreme Court said in the decision penned by Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao.
The high court also noted that the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion in ruling that no inordinate delay was caused by the Ombudsman in the preliminary investigation of the cases.
The high court also noted that the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion in ruling that no inordinate delay was caused by the Ombudsman in the preliminary investigation of the cases.
The court noted that it took the Ombudsman three years to conduct its preliminary investigation, without valid justification from the Ombudsman.
The court noted that it took the Ombudsman three years to conduct its preliminary investigation, without valid justification from the Ombudsman.
“Yap sufficiently established that he was prejudiced by the inordinate delay,” the court said.
“Yap sufficiently established that he was prejudiced by the inordinate delay,” the court said.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
