Sandiganbayan clears Binay's wife
April 11, 2011, 8:52pm
MANILA, Philippines – The Sandiganbayan has dismissed the graft case against the wife of Vice President Jejomar Binay in connection with the alleged purchase of overpriced furniture.
The ruling in favor of Mrs. Elenita Binay concluded almost 11 years of legal battle dating back to the time when she was mayor of Makati City.
Also acquitted on the same case were Nicanor Santiago and Ernesto Aspillaga, then city administrator and head of the General Services Department, respectively.
In its ruling, the Sandiganbayan Second Division said, “the evidence on record intended to establish the alleged excessive purchases is insufficient to qualify as proof beyond reasonable doubt.’’
The court’s 69-page resolution issued April 7 also noted that the evidence on record to establish the allegation of overprice in furniture purchases “do not reach the quantum of proof required by law.’’
The graft court also ordered to cancel and return the bail bonds of the former Makati City officials.
In October 2000, Binay and her co-accused were charged with violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019 when they awarded to the Office Gallery International, Inc. (OGII) the procurement of office partitions and furniture amounting to P58.1 million.
The Makati City officials were accused of making illegal purchases of the office partitions in the amount of P16.3 million as indicated under purchase order no. 11579, which was used to cover the negotiated purchase under disbursement voucher no. 1836.
The charges were based on a Commission on Audit (CoA) report finding alleged discrepancies in purchase orders or vouchers submitted by the city government.
The CoA report claimed the amount of damage supposedly suffered by the city on account of excess partition purchases have been reached on the basis of the flawed procedures.
The court said that although there are fundamental issues of uncertainty in the audit procedure adopted, the prosecution failed to prove charges of excessive purchases and overpricing beyond reasonable doubt.
It added that the credibility and competence of evidence relating to the validity of the prosecution’s claims of excess and overprice were doubtful. (Shianee Mamanglu)