CA junks forfeiture case against 3 involved in Napoles pork scam
by Joel R. San Juan, https://www.facebook.com/, https://www.facebook.com/BusinessMirror/ · BusinessMirror- Joel R. San Juan
- October 24, 2024
- 2 minute read
THE Court of Appeals (CA) has junked the civil forfeiture case filed by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) against three individuals for their alleged involvement in the multi-billion pork barrel scam perpetrated by businesswoman Janet Lim Napoles.
In a 17-page ruling, the CA’s Ninth Division granted the petition filed by Hector Ang, Jacqueline Ang and Nicole Tiffany Ang that sought the reversal of the ruling issued by the Regional Trial Court in Manila in 2022 which denied their motion to dismiss the case.
The petitioners sought the dismissal of the case on the ground of violation of their right to the speedy disposition of their case.
The AMLC filed the civil forfeiture case on February 25, 2014 naming the petitioners, Napoles, her family members, several individuals and various corporations and nongovernment organizations (NGOs) as respondents.
On October 4, 2022, the petitioners sought the dismissal of the case but it was denied by the RTC in Manila on November 3, 2022, prompting them to elevate the case before the CA.
In ruling in favor of the petitioners, the CA stressed that the right to speedy disposition of cases is guaranteed by Section 16, Article III of the Constitution.
It explained that the constitutional right is not limited to the accused in criminal proceedings but extends to all parties in all cases, even in civil or administrative in nature, as well as in all proceedings, either judicial or quasi-judicial.
The CA added that any party to a case may demand expeditious action of all officials who are tasked with the administration of justice.
In the case of the petitioners, the CA noted that the suit has not moved for eight years and five months since the AMLC filed a motion to file supplemental petition for civil forfeiture on June 9, 2014.
“Yes. The lapse of eight years and five months, without having the case moved from one stage to another, is a long delay—an inordinate delay, and there was no reason provided as to why there was a delay in the case’s proceedings,” the CA noted.
The CA also pointed out that the delays can lead to the “degradation of evidence.”
“Here, the danger of inordinate reliance on human memory would result in the possible deprivation of property, a circumstance that would be unjust and oppressive,” it said.
“Thus, to Our mind, the lapse of eight years and five months without the case having moved from one stage to another is an inordinate delay, which is prejudicial to the petitioners,” the CA said.
The appellate court noted that due to the delay in the proceedings, petitioners would have to track down their witness who has resigned from the bank, so that she could recall the details of transactions that occurred over a decade ago.
“All told, the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioners’ motion to dismiss on the ground of violation of their right to speedy disposition of their civil forfeiture case,” the CA declared.
0 0 0 0 Share 0 Tweet 0 Pin it 0 Share 0 Author ProfileRelated Posts
Joel R. San Juan
A UST journalism graduate, has been working as a reporter for more than 20 years.
- Joel R. San Juanhttps://businessmirror.com.ph/author/joelsanjuan/SC orders criminal prosecution of defunct Orient Bank owner
- Joel R. San Juanhttps://businessmirror.com.ph/author/joelsanjuan/CA dismisses plea of Prudentialife for rehabilitation
- Joel R. San Juanhttps://businessmirror.com.ph/author/joelsanjuan/SC sacks Ong from antigraft court
- Joel R. San Juanhttps://businessmirror.com.ph/author/joelsanjuan/Port stakeholders clamor for long-term solutions to ease Manila ports congestion