MANILA -- For lack of merit, the Sandiganbayan has junked the motion to dismiss the criminal cases filed against two former executives of the Bureau of Immigration (BI) over the alleged PHP50-million bribery in exchange for the release of 1,316 illegal Chinese workers in 2016.
The Sandiganbayan Sixth Division, in a resolution dated Nov. 12, 2018, denied for lack of merit the motion filed by former BI Associate Commissioners Al Argosino and Michael Robles, which seeks to dismiss the cases of graft, direct bribery and violation of Presidential Decree No. 46 filed against them by the Office of the Ombudsman.
“The other argument of accused Argosino, i.e., that the alleged receipt of money in two instances constitutes a single criminal act, purports to be in support of his argument that the offenses charged in SB-18-CRM-0240, 0242 and 0243 are absorbed in plunder. However, it is nothing but a reiteration or rehash of his previous arguments in SB18-CRM-0241 which he had repeatedly raised in his previous motions, his petition for bail, and his motion for reconsideration of this Court's Resolution denying bail,” it added.
“This Court had already considered and passed upon such argument, and hence, there is no need to discuss it anew. More important, accused Argosino seeks the dismissal of SB18-CRM-0240, 0242 and 0243. The element of amassing, accumulating or acquiring ill-gotten wealth through a series or combination of overt or criminal acts is not an element in any of the offenses charged in those cases,” the Sandiganbayan said.
Argosino, Robles, and retired police officer Wilfredo Sombero Jr. are facing plunder case and other charges in connection with the PHP50-million bribery scandal. They were arraigned last June 29, 2018 and are currently detained in Camp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan, Taguig City.
Court records showed that Argosino filed his motion to quash information and/or dismiss cases on Oct. 15, 2018 and Robles filed his manifestation adopting Argosino’s motion on Oct. 23, 2018.
In their motion, Argosino and Robles argued that the cases should be dismissed on the ground of double jeopardy because the crimes they were charged with are absorbed in plunder.
They added that Article III, Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution provides that "(n)o person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act."
They also argued that “the alleged receipt of money in two instances, but only about three hours apart constitute only a single criminal act. Said acts were impelled by a single criminal intent, and hence, there should only be one criminal liability.”
In its comment, the Ombudsman said the crimes of violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019, or the “Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act”, direct bribery and violation of PD No. 46 are not absorbed in plunder.
“No double jeopardy is attached because not all requisites are present,” it added. (PNA)
