Anti-graft court allows Ombudsman to revisit Pharmally case
THE Sandiganbayan has granted the Office of the Ombudsman’s request to withdraw the graft cases filed against former Budget Undersecretary Lloyd Christopher A. Lao and other officials of Pharmally Pharmaceutical Corp. concerning the alleged anomalous purchase of over P8 billion worth of COVID-19 supplies.
In an eight-page resolution dated Nov. 17, the anti-graft court sustained the Ombudsman’s authority to revisit earlier findings and effectively reversed the action taken under former Ombudsman Samuel R. Martires, following a motion filed by Ombudsman Jesus Crispin C. Remulla.
“Settled is the rule that a sitting Ombudsman has the power to revoke or alter the rulings of a predecessor within the bounds of the law,” the court said.
The complaints stemmed from the multibillion peso procurement of personal protective equipment, surgical masks, face shields, and Real Time-PCR test kits from Pharmally in 2020. The company, which reportedly had only P625,000 in paid-up capital, secured contracts amounting to over P8 billion from the Procurement Service of the Department of Budget and Management, which was then headed by Mr. Lao.
The transactions were later flagged in Senate hearings as anomalous due to allegations of overpricing and that Pharmally received preferential treatment, allegedly through former presidential adviser Michael Yang.
Upon assuming office, Mr. Remulla sought to withdraw the cases to pave the way for a reassessment and reinvestigation of the evidence.
While acknowledging that the Ombudsman has full discretion in determining probable cause, the Sandiganbayan reiterated that it assumes control over a case once the Information is filed in court.
Despite this, the court saw merit in the withdrawal, noting that it was not based on lack of probable cause but on the need to scrutinize the charges to ensure they are well-founded for trial.
“This Court sees no inconsistency between its previous finding of probable cause for the purpose of issuing warrants of arrest and in allowing the withdrawal of the Informations,” the resolution stated.
The court also countered the arguments raised by the accused that the withdrawal would cause “inordinate delay” and violate their right to the speedy disposition of cases.
“After careful consideration of the facts, allegations, and records of these cases, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the withdrawal of the Informations despite the previous finding of probable cause and the earlier issuance of the warrants of arrest,” the court concluded. — Erika Mae P. Sinaking
