Sandiganbayan clears two La Union hospital officials of graft

SAN FERNANDO CITY, La Union -- The Sandiganbayan recently upheld the acquittal of two public hospital officials in here who were accused of graft due to alleged gross negligence.

Sandiganbayan Second Division Associate Justice Samuel Martires, who wrote the decision, ruled that there is no merit in the petition for certiorari filed by government lawyers, contesting the lower court’s ruling on the doctors’ motion.

The seven-page decision was concurred in by division chairman Associate Justice Edilberto Sandoval and Associate Justice Teresita Diaz-Baldos.

In a petition filed before the Sandiganbayan, government prosecutors said they have shown enough proof, both documentary and testimonial, that respondent doctors and hospital officials

Dr. Gilbert de Leon, chief of the Ilocos Training and Regional Medical Center, and its medical training officer, Dr. Alexander Alviar, committed gross negligence.

The prosecutors claimed that Judge Adolfo Algar of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 66 of San Fernando City, wrongfully dismissed the case against De Leon and Alviar despite their strong evidence.

They also noted the case against Alviar was even junked by the judge without any discussion as to the reasons why his demurrer was granted.

Prosecutors filed charges for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, against the two doctors who allegedly conspired in committing the offense and caused undue injury to ITRMC when they gave unwarranted benefits to themselves by causing the preparation of ITRMC Purchase Order No. 0930 for P1,318,800.000 on June 19, 2002 and Purchase Order No., 1505 for P110,000 on Sept. 30, 2002.

After the prosecution rested its case, both accused filed their demurer to evidence, which was granted by the judge in its Nov. 2, 2006 resolution, citing insufficiency of evidence.

In opposing the prosecution’s certiorari, the respondents pointed out the failure of government lawyers to file a motion for reconsideration.

The doctors further argued the certiorari violated their right against double jeopardy since the dismissal of the criminal cases based on demurrer was equivalent to an acquittal and not merely a dismissal with the consent of the accused.

In deciding the case, the Sandiganbayan reiterated the basic rule that before a certiorari can be availed of, the petitioner must first file a motion for reconsideration to enable the lower court to pass upon and correct its mistakes without he intervention of the higher court.

“Hence, the petitioner’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration is a fatal infirmity,” said the Sandiganbayan.

Regarding the government lawyers’ claim that the judgment is tainted with grave abuse of discretion and, therefore, null and void, the anti-graft declared it as “flawed.”

The Sandiganbayan said that whatever error may have been committed by the lower court was merely an error of judgment and not jurisdiction. In this case, a judgment of acquittal cannot be revived by a higher court because an appeal by the government prosecutors would mean a double jeopardy for the same offense, said the Sandiganbayan. – Sandy Araneta