THE Sandiganbayan has denied the appeal of Honesto Baniqued, former president of the National Agribusiness Corporation (Nabcor), to the decision of the anti-graft court issued on March 25, 2022 convicting him on one count of graft.
In a resolution penned by Associate Justice Rafael L. Lagos dated May 6, 2022, the Fifth Division held that it found no ground to overturn its previous pronouncements on the defendant’s guilt.
Associate Justices Maria Theresa V. Mendoza-Arcega and Maryann E. Corpus-Mañalac concurred.
“It is a well-settled rule that a Motion for Reconsideration should be denied when the same only constitutes a rehash of issues previously put forward. These arguments have already been deliberated and exhaustively passed upon,” the Sandiganbayan said.
Baniqued was seeking reversal of the ruling that his approval of the hiring of a legal consultant in 2012 without holding a public bidding was illegal.
He has been sentenced to a six-year jail term with perpetual disqualification from holding public office and an indemnity judgment of P4.8 million in favor of the Department of Agriculture.
The case stemmed from the hiring of a private lawyer in 2012 as Nabcor’s financial advisor/consultant to assist it in negotiating the terms of its P1.676 billion debt with the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC).
According to the consultancy contract, the lawyer will receive P10.3 million with P300,000 to be paid as partial payment, P5 million when the PDIC accepts the debt-restructuring proposal, and another P5 million once PDIC and Nabcor signed the final DRP.
Prosecutors said the consultant was paid P4.797 million on July 26, 2012 even if the job was not yet completed thereby causing the government undue injury.
In his appeal, the accused said he had no idea that public bidding was also a requirement for a legal consultant. He said he acted on the honest belief that competitive public bidding was only required in consulting services for infrastructure projects.
He added that he simply relied on the Nabcor’s Finance Team that the conditions for release of payment had already been complied with.
However, the court held that Baniqued’s arguments in his appeal were nothing new, having been previously raised in his presentation of evidence.
At the same time, it noted that as a high ranking public official, he was not only expected to know the proper procedure in the procurement of supplies and services, he was also duty bound to observe them.
