THE Sandiganbayan has denied a bid by former Makati City mayor Elenita Binay and six co-accused to seek outright dismissal of charges of graft and malversation of public funds filed against them by the Office of the Ombudsman in 2012.
In a resolution dated November 4, 2022, the Second Division denied the defendants’ motions seeking leave of court to file demurrers to evidence challenging alleging insufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence to support the key elements of the criminal offenses.
The cases stemmed from a report of the Commission on Audit’s Special Task Force of Local Government Units (STFLGU) created in 2001 to review contracts entered into by Metro Manila LGUs covering procurement P1 million and above as well as infrastructure projects and service contracts worth P20 million or higher.
Aside from Binay’s, also denied were motions filed by Ospital ng Makati gynecology head Mabel Asunio, Committee on Canvass members Jaime delos Reyes and Conrado Pamintuan, OsMak property inspector Lilia Nonato, City General Services Department head Nestor Aspillaga, and city treasurer Luz Yamane-Garcia.
Prosecutors said the Makati City government’s purchase of hospital equipment worth P9.9 million from Apollo Medical Equipment and Supplies in 2002 to 2001 did not undergo the required public bidding.
Likewise, they said the supplier is not registered with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a medical device and supplies distributor. A records officer of the FDA’s General Services Division listed as a government witness had issued a certification that the supposed License to Operate No. 0005555 identified in the case does not exist in their files.
The defendants said evidence presented by the prosecution did not amount to proof beyond reasonable doubt for both the graft and the malversation cases.
They said the “precise, direct, and clear participation” of each defendant or the allegation of conspiracy among them has not been established.
They also challenged the veracity of documentary evidence on the ground that supposed signatures of accused public officials have not been authenticated.
The anti-graft court disagreed, saying: “The pending motions for leave to file demurrer to evidence are all without merit. The accused failed to specifically state their grounds for their demurrer to evidence.”
The Sandiganbayan highlighted the requirement under the Rules of Court that the accused should have specified the grounds for the request for leave to file demurrer to evidence.
