Former Department of Finance (DOF) senior tax specialist Mark Binsol failed to convince the Sandiganbayan to quash graft charges filed against him in connection with the multi-million pesos tax credit certificate (TCC) scam 30 years ago.
In a resolution issued March 20, 2025, the anti-graft court’s third division denied the defendant’s motion to set aside its October 30, 2024 ruling that denied his prayer to quash the charges on the ground that his right to speedy disposition of cases was violated by years of delay in the investigation.
The Office of the Ombudsman named Binsol a co-accused when in 2017 it filed 45 counts of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019) against DOF officials and executives of a garment firm in connection with the alleged illegal issuance of TCCs worth P112.61 million from 1995 to 1998.
Named defendants in all 45 cases were former finance undersecretary Antonio Belicena (+), One-Stop Shop Inter-Angecy Tax Credit and Duty Drawback Center (DOF Center) deputy executive director Uldarico Andutan Jr., and private defendants, the incorporators or officials of Mannequin International Corp: Melchor Tan, Genoveva Tan, Julio Tan Jr., Blanquita Patawaran-Tan, Edgardo Olandez, Bernard Farin, Edmund Arandia, Michael Ray Quimpo, Alicia Bautista, Cristina Castillo, Leonardo Raña, Elena Buenaventura, and Dondon Pamatmat.
Other DOF-Center personnel named co-accused were textile division reviewer Asuncion Magdaet (43 counts), clerk Emelita Tizon and tax specialist Annabelle Diño (six counts each); tax specialist Merose Tordesilla (five counts); clerk Cherry Gomez and senior tax specialist Charmelle Recoter (four counts); planning officer Maria Cristina Moncada, senior tax specialist Sylvialina Daguimol, and administrative aide Gemma Ortiz-Abara (three counts); senior tax specialist Mark Binsol, and tax specialists Purita Napeñas and Gregoria Cuento-Evangelio (two counts); and planning officer III Rowena Malonzo-Maño, and tax specialists Manuel Rigor III, Paul Patricio Senador and Marife Cabadin (one count each).
The prosecutors said Mannequin Corp. was illegally granted TCCs even if it was not qualified for the privilege as it did not export any product and it used falsified documents in support of its application.
Binsol argued that he did not sleep on his rights as he filed a motion to quash right was his arraignment. He added that the Sadiganbayan second division had already granted a similar motion of accused Magdaet.
The third division, however, found no merit in his arguments noting that a defendant’s right to speedy disposition of cases has limitations as the rules require the court to take into account the facts and circumstances of the pending case.
Based on the records, it noted that the Ombudsman’s Field Investigation Office formally filed the complaint only on December 27, 2017 and then Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales approved the indictments in March 2017 and the cases were filed in court a month later.
“Considering that the period taken for fact-finding investigations prior to the filing of the formal complaint shall not be included in the determination of whether there has been inordinate delay, it took the prosecution a period of four years and four months to conduct and terminate the preliminary investigation and file the case,” the Sandiganbayan pointed out.
It held that the sheer volume of evidence to be evaluated and the complexity of the issues involved “made the delay inevitable” even as it found that the defendants did not suffer any prejudice since the length of time it took to resolve the complaints was justified.
It pointed out that the cases implicated 80 individuals, covered 53 tax credit certificates transaction, and government losses computed at P112,606,076, finally resulting in the filing of 45 graft cases.
“Considering the foregoing attendant circumstances, we hold that the length of time spent was not unreasonable. Even if there was a delay, the same was not inordinate, vexatious, capricious, and oppressive, but was brought about only by the nature and peculiar circumstances of these consolidated cases,” the Sandiganbayan said.
It also explained that the decision of one division of the Sandiganbayan is not binding on any of the other six divisions of the special court as they are co-equal and independent of each other.
