The Sandiganbayan has denied the appeal of a former Philippine Air Force (PAF) officer, who had sought dismissal of his graft cases, involving P89 million in alleged ghost deliveries of supplies and materials.

In a resolution dated 27 September, the anti-graft court Special Fifth Division said it found “no compelling reason” to reverse its ruling in August, which denied former PAF first lieutenant Danilo Pangilinan’s motion to quash six counts of graft brought against him. 

The Sandiganbayan was not convinced about Pangilinan’s assertion that the court’s decision dismissing the cases of his co-accused should, likewise, apply to him.

“Unlike Pangilinan, his co-accused moved to quash the information before arraignment and within months following the filing of the information. It is significant to note that Pangilinan did not concern himself with the result of the preliminary investigation when he left the country for the United States of America in 2008,” the Sandiganbayan said.

Pangilinan was among those PAF officers indicted in 2009 over allegations of defrauding the government in the amount of P89 million through ghost deliveries.

A fact-finding investigation by the military and other law enforcement officers and the PAF’s Office of the Inspector General both confirmed that there were ghost deliveries of assorted supplies and materials at the 5th Fighter Wing Basa Air Base amounting to P24.4 million and unaccounted supplies and materials worth P42.5 million. 

In 2010 and 2011, at least 14 PAF officers, including retired lieutenant General Leopoldo Acot, walked free from the corruption raps after the Sandiganbayan granted their motion to quash on the grounds that their right to speedy disposition of cases was violated.

Pangilinan went to the United States in 2008 and returned only to the country on 15 August. 

He argued that he could not have expected that the cases would still be filed against him after the Ombudsman took 15 years to file the cases in Sandiganbayan.

The court, however, said the quashal of the case cannot be applied to Pangilinan, who failed to timely assert his right to speedy disposition of the cases.

“An accused who fails to timely assert that right may be found to have waived it despite [the fact] that the prosecution failed to sufficiently explain the prolonged preliminary investigation,” the Sandiganbayan ruled.

“Thus, the court reaffirms it prior determination: Pangilinan acquiesced to the delay and had, therefore, waived his right to speedy disposition of the cases,” it added.