The graft cases filed against Bureau of Immigration officials linked to the “pastillas” bribery scandal will go on a full-blown trial as the Sandiganbayan junked the motion of three of the accused to dismiss the charges because of lack of jurisdiction.
A Sandiganbayan resolution said the anti-graft court did not find any of the reasons cited by the accused to merit the dismissal of the case.
The “pastillas” bribery scheme was allegedly employed by crooked BI personnel to facilitate the illegal entry of Chinese citizens into the country.
In a resolution dated July 27, the anti-graft court dismissed the motion to quash filed by Aurelio Lucero III, George Bituin, and Salahudin Hadjinoor, all of Immigration Officer 3 rank.
Government prosecutors charged the three and 39 others with graft, alleging that these conspired with each other and Liya Wu of Empire International Travel and Tours, to “willfully, unlawfully… give unwarranted benefits, preference or advantage to foreign passengers, particularly Chinese nationals” by supposedly collecting a P10,000 fee per passenger for a total amount of P1.43 million.
The anti-graft court cited the Supreme Court decision in the People v. Dapitan case which provides that Republic Act No. 8249, which established the anti-graft court, states that “the Sandiganbayan exercises jurisdiction over all officials occupying positions in the government, whether in a permanent, acting, or interim capacity.”
“We deny the motion to quash for lack of merit. [The] accused do not dispute that a Deputy Commissioner [like their co-accused Marc Mariñas] falls under Salary Grade 27. The fact that Mariñas’ appointment did not become permanent is of no moment,” the Sandiganabayan said.
“The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the offense and the accused. There is no doubt that Mariñas’ designation as officer-in-charge is either in an acting, or interim capacity. Precisely, within the jurisdiction of this Court,” the court added.
The Sandiganbayan said that Mariñas, being under Salary Grade 27 during his tenure, is sufficient for the court to exercise its jurisdiction.
Likewise, the anti-graft court found the graft raps filed by government prosecutors sufficient in form and substance.
