‘Fugitive’ Co, et al. will still be tried for 3 separate cases–Court
The Sandiganbayan’s Fifth Division has rejected a motion to consolidate the graft and malversation cases of former Ako Bicol Rep. Elizaldy Co and his 15 coaccused over an alleged substandard road dike project in Oriental Mindoro, which means the cases will be tried separately as originally intended.
It also declared Co and three of his coaccused, whose whereabouts remain unknown, in these cases as fugitives from justice for their continued evasion of authorities.
In a 13-page resolution promulgated on Dec. 10 but was only made public on Thursday, the Fifth Division said it “respectfully declines” the Sixth Division’s move to consolidate the malversation and graft cases.
The Sixth Division earlier granted the motion by prosecutors from the Office of the Ombudsman seeking to consolidate the malversation and graft cases. Prosecutors argued that holding separate trials would just be redundant, costly and time-consuming.
The malversation case was raffled off to the Sixth Division while the graft case went distributed to the Fifth Division. The Seventh Division took the separate graft case where Co was the lone respondent.
Delay not expedite
While acknowledging the benefits that may be gained from the consolidation of the cases such as the speedy disposition of cases and conserving government resources, the Fifth Division noted that any inconvenience and expense arising from the nonconsolidation should not be done over the right to a speedy trial and protection to the accused.
“[I]t is equally settled that the resulting inconvenience and expense on the part of the government cannot be given preference over the right to speedy trial and the protection to a person’s life liberty or property accorded by the [1987] Constitution,” stated the resolution penned by Associate Justice Zaldy Trespeses, division chair, with concurrences from Associate Justices Maryann Corpus-Mañalac and Gener Gito.
The division said it already made settings for the case and set the dates for marking on Jan. 19 and Jan. 26, 2026, as well as Feb. 5, Feb. 12, Feb. 19 and Feb. 26 next year.
It further noted that consolidating both cases “may necessarily delay both” instead of expedite the trial, which has been the goal of the prosecution, because the dates set by both divisions may be changed due to the consolidation.
Fundamental difference
“Cognizant of its duty, and acting on the ‘Urgent Petitions for Bail’ filed by the accused, the Sixth Division has already made settings for the marking and pretrial,” the Fifth Division noted.
Another point raised by the Fifth Division was that the required bail hearing for the graft case under its jurisdiction would afford both the prosecution and the defense sufficient time to present their evidence.
Even if the granting of the bail hearing is of a “summary nature” and the witnesses to be presented are considered automatically reproduced, the division said that any hearing and resolution of the graft charge “will necessarily be delayed” until the completion of the bail hearing for the malversation charge in the Sixth Division.
“Moreover, any delay in the presentation of witnesses in the bail hearing, will likewise delay the hearing and resolution of the actual trial of the principal cases,” the Fifth Division noted.
“Thus, while the court may concede, and as the prosecution so claims, that indeed, there may be identical parties, commonality of the lineage of the offenses, and perhaps even the evidence to be presented, there is a fundamental difference in the preliminary issues to be resolved, specifically the differing burden of proof in a bail hearing,” it explained.
The division also highlighted how the Sandiganbayan is composed of seven divisions and that the request for consolidation would be “similarly achieved if this court’s adjudicative capacity is maximized and each case filed before its divisions proceeds to trial as expeditiously as possible, ever cognizant of the rights of the accused.”
Passports canceled
Meanwhile, the Fifth Division has also canceled the passports of Co and three of his coaccused, all of whom are members of the board of directors of Sunwest Inc., the construction firm tapped in the P289.4 million road dike project in Naujan, Oriental Mindoro.
They are Aderma Angelie Alcazar, Cesar Buenaventura and Noel Cao, whose locations and whereabouts remain unknown, based on the prosecution’s motion to the Sandiganbayan.
In two separate resolutions also promulgated on Dec. 10 and made public on Thursday, the antigraft court granted the separate urgent motions by prosecutors from the Ombudsman seeking the cancellations of their passports and to declare them as fugitives.
In the five-page resolution concerning Alcazar, Buenaventura and Cao, the court stressed how the prosecution “sufficiently established grounds” to declare the three as fugitives, which would warrant the cancellation of their passports.
Agents from the National Bureau of Investigation attempted to serve the warrants against the three, but they were not found, according to the antigraft court.
In granting the prosecution’s manifestation for Co’s passport, it acknowledged his “deliberate refusal” to submit himself to the court’s lawful authority, which it said “confirms his clear intent to remain outside the jurisdiction of the court.”
“It must be emphasized that accused (Co) left the country at the time when investigations into alleged corruption in flood control projects were active and when formal charges against him were imminent,” the court said in its eight-page resolution, also penned by Trespeses, again with concurrences from Corpus-Mañalac and Gito.
‘Deliberate attempt’
Co’s departure, which the court described as a “strategically timed flight,” indicates there was “sufficient ground for the reasonable inference that his action constituted a deliberate attempt to flee from justice.”
Given the “highly publicized” nature of the cases against him, the explicit calls for him to surrender by the NBI and the Department of the Interior and Local Government and the presence of his lawyers during the implementation of the warrants against him, the court said it is “reasonably presumed” that Co was fully aware of the cases against him.
“Therefore, even assuming arguendo that his initial departure was innocent, his failure to return, continued absence and refusal to surrender upon clear knowledge of the warrants undeniably demonstrates a clear intent to evade the now-existing prosecution,” it explained.
“By consciously choosing to remain at large and not presenting himself to the authorities, accused Co is evading the legal process,” it added.
