FORMER Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) chair Efraim Genuino has failed in his bid for the dismissal of two graft charges filed against him by the Office of the Ombudsman before the Sandiganbayan.
In a 10-page resolution issued last March 9, the anti-graft court’s Third Division denied Genuino’s motion asking it to take judicial notice of the January 28, 2020 decision of the Commission on Audit in his favor.
Genuino said the COA lifted the notices of disallowance and cleared him of liability in relation to the transfer of P37 million Pagcor funds for the training of Filipino swimmers who competed in the 2012 London Olympics.
Based on the indictment, the sum was released directly to the Philippine Amateur Swimming Association (PASA), which the latter used to pay rental charges by the TRACE Aquatic Center (TAC), a business allegedly owned and controlled by Genuino and his family.
However, the COA ruled that Pagcor officials had no knowledge or participation in PASA’s decision to transact with or engage the services of third parties.
Genuino argued that, applying the COA’s pronouncements, there is no longer any basis to the cases pending against him.
The anti-graft court, however, disagreed saying it is not bound by the finding of the COA.
“While the findings of administrative bodies, like the COA Commission Proper, are generally accorded with great respect by the courts by reason of their special knowledge and expertise over matters falling under their jurisdiction, the same principle only applies to cases which initially originated from the said administrative bodies and which are now pending before the Courts,” the Sandiganbayan pointed out.
The defense likewise invoked the 2021 Supreme Court ruling in the case of Genuino vs. Commission on Audit which declared that the COA committed grave abuse of discretion in auditing Pagcor’s accounts beyond the five percent franchise tax and the 50 percent share of the government from its gross earnings.
Genuino said the Sandiganbayan should declare as “private and corporate funds” the amount involved in the graft charges which would then cease to be classified as public funds.
The Sandiganbayan, however, overruled the motion, noting that there were no similarities of facts between the SC case and the pending graft charges.
While the SC ruling involved Pagcor’s financial assistance to a private homeowners’ association, the pending cases pertain to agency funds including the five percent share of the Philippine Sports Commission (PSC).
“Prescinding therefrom, it is obvious that this doctrine finds application only in subsequent proceedings of the same case. It does not bind parties, more so, the Court, in another case, even if it involves the same parties,” the Sandiganbayan said.
