THE Sandiganbayan has denied a motion filed by former top officials of the Land Bank of the Philippines seeking dismissal of a five-year old graft case against them in connection with the questionable sale of the bank’s P4.2 billion stake in Meralco in 2008.
Presiding Justice and Third Division chairperson Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang penned the eight-page resolution issued last April 3 that declared the defendant’s motion premature due to unresolved matters relative to the case that remains pending before the Supreme Court.
Associate Justices Bernelito R. Fernandez and Ronald B. Moreno concurred.
Filed in 2018, the information alleged that Landbank’s top officials caused injury to the government-owned bank when they entered into a Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) with Global 5000 Investment Inc. on December 2, 2008 regarding the sale of bank’s 46,596,596 Meralco shares.
The Ombudsman said the SPA was “manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government based on the agreed terms and conditions that would have allowed Global 5000 Investment Inc. to just tender a 20 percent down payment” but collect “any and all dividends” on the subject shares, exercise full voting rights, and pay only P553.847 million on fixed-term interest for three years.
Prosecutors said the P553.847 million interest spread over three years means the rate is only 4.4 percent per annum, which they said was “far below the legal interest” of 6 percent.
They likewise questioned the legality of the condition that permitted the application of cash dividends on the Meralco shares as “partial payment” against the balance of the agreed sale price even if the buyer firm has not fully paid Landbank.
Named defendants were former Landbank president and chief executive officer Gilda Pico, former vice president for Local Currency Department Carel Halog, former LBP First VP for Treasury Group Roberto Sandoval and LBP Board directors Margarito Teves, Marianito Roque, Patricia Rualo-Bello, Eduardo Nolasco, Albert Balingit, George Regalado, and Cyril del Callar.
In their Motion to Dismiss dated January 15, 2024, Pico and Halog invoked the 2023 Supreme Court decision in G.R. Nos. 237558, 238133, and 238138 which ordered the dismissal of the graft complaint against them and their co-defendants for lack of probable cause.
They pointed out that the SC ruling set aside the 2017 ruling of the Ombudsman declaring the existence of probable cause and indicting LBP officials.
Prosecutors opposed the motion on the ground that the decision issued by the Second Division of the Supreme Court is not yet executory in the absence of an Entry of Judgment.
The Court noted that the present management of the LBP has filed a Motion for Reconsideration to the SC with an accompanying Motion to Refer the Case to the Supreme Court En Banc.
“Clearly, the issue of whether the terms and conditions of the SPA are manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government is still alive in G.R. No. 266540. Moreover, there is a pending motion therein to refer the matter to the Supreme Court En Banc,” the Sandiganbayan noted. “Wherefore, the Court hereby denies accused Gilda E. Pico and Carel D. Halog’s motion to dismiss for being premature.”
