MANILA — The Sandiganbayan has moved the arraignment of the accused individuals in the so-called “pastillas scam” after they questioned the decision of the Ombudsman to file charges against them before the anti-graft court.

In a resolution dated July 6, 2022, the Sandiganbayan 7th Division rescheduled to Sept. 9 the arraignment initially set last Friday for all the accused, except for Jeffrey Dale Ignacio who has not yet filed his bail bond.

The court noted that several motions have been filed by the accused seeking the deferment of the arraignment because of the pendency of their motions for reconsideration filed before the Ombudsman.

The prosecution likewise asked the court for deferment to resolve the 19 motions for reconsideration filed before the Ombudsman.

The court said the prosecution was given 60 days to resolve the motions for reconsideration.

“It is to be noted however that the deferment or suspension does not signify that the court is bound by the resolution of the Ombudsman as jurisdiction, once acquired by the court, is not lost despite a contrary finding by the prosecution,” the court said in the resolution issued by Division Acting Chairperson Zaldy Trespeses, with the concurrence of Associate Justice Georgina Hidalgo and Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang.

Fifty-one individuals from the Bureau of Immigration are facing graft charges before the Sandiganbayan for their alleged participation in a scheme that supposedly allowed the easy entry of foreigners into the country in exchange for payouts wrapped like the local candy “pastillas”.

• Ombudsman orders dismissal of 45 BI officers, staff linked to 'pastillas scam'
• DOJ: Immigration cleansing continues after 'pastillas' scam

The Sandiganbayan noted supposed lapses in the proceedings held by the Ombudsman during its preliminary investigation phase, as assailed by the accused in their pleadings before the court to defer their arraignment.

In the particular motion for deferment filed by respondent Angelica Omampo, the court noted that the Ombudsman did not attempt to serve documents at her known permanent address after the failure of delivery to her other residential address.

“From the foregoing, the court finds that the attempt made by the Ombudsman to serve notice to accused fall short of the due process contemplated by the law, and thus, accused was deprived of the opportunity to controvert the accusations hurled against her,” the court said.

The court also said in its order that because of the COVID-19 pandemic and the high number of accused individuals, they were not allowed to bring companions while law firms had to minimize the number of associates.

FROM THE ARCHIVES

Watch more News on iWantTFC