Binays, 22 others acquitted in Makati parking building case
After 10 years, the Sandiganbayan has cleared former Vice President Jejomar “Jojo” Binay Sr., former Makati City Mayor Jejomar “Junjun” Binay Jr. and their 22 coaccused of criminal charges over the P2.2-billion Makati City Hall parking building that complainants deemed an expensive construction.
The antigraft court’s Third Division, in a 202-page decision promulgated on Friday, said the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
In particular, the court said, the prosecution has not proved that the statements in the assailed documents related to the criminal charges against the Binays and 22 others “were absolutely false.”
“Consequently, the allegation of conspiracy must also fail,” read the decision penned by Associate Justice Ronald Moreno, also the division chairn. Concurring with the decision were Associate Justices Gener Gito and Edgardo Caldona.
The Binays and their coaccused, all of whom were former officers of the Makati City Hall and the construction firm, faced multiple counts of graft, malversation and falsification of public documents for the construction of the Makati City Hall II Parking Building.
Their coaccused were: Marjorie de Veyra, Pio Kenneth Dasal, Lorenza Amores, Virginia Hernandez, Line dela Peña, Mario Badillo, Leonila Querijero, Raydes Pestaño, Nelia Barlis, Cecilio Lim III, Arnel Cadangan, Emerito Magat, Connie Consulta, Ulysses Orienza, Giovanni Condes, Manolito Uyaco, Norman Flores, Gerardo San Gabriel, Eleno Mendoza Jr., Rodel Nayve, Orlando Mateo from Mana Architecture and Interior Design, Co. (Mana), and Efren Canlas of Hilmarc’s Construction Co. (Hilmarc’s).
The Binays and their coaccused were all cleared for five counts of graft.
Five phases
Then Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales approved their indictments after finding “flagrant irregularities” allegedly committed by Binay Sr. in the design and construction of the parking building that underwent six phases (five for construction, one for design).
The five construction phases spanned Binay Sr.’s terms as Makati City mayor until he was succeeded by his son Binay Jr.
The elder Binay was formally charged after he stepped down from his post and was defeated in the 2016 presidential election.
Binay Sr. was specifically charged with rigging the first three phases of the construction.
Morales back then said that no public bidding was conducted by Binay Sr. prior to his engagement with Mana, the project designer.
“The evidence showed the procurement process was manipulated to ensure the award of the contract to Mana; and that four payments totaling to P11.97 million were processed and approved despite the incomplete submission of deliverables, such as design plans, working drawings and technical specifications,” the Ombudsman said in a 2015 statement.
Binay Jr.’s first charge, on the other hand, involved the contract for phase IV with Hilmarc’s despite the absence of approved plans and specifications and the company’s failure to post a performance bond to ensure it fulfills its contractual obligations.
The younger Binay also reportedly approved the release of P649.2 million to Hilmarc’s, even though the accomplishment report was baseless and supporting documents had deficiencies.
Binay Jr.’s charges for falsification of public documents, meanwhile, stemmed from his alleged role in falsifying a July 7, 2011, issue of Balita newspaper, as well as an affidavit of publication, to make it appear that an invitation to apply for eligibility and to bid was published.
Prosecution’s failure
The Ombudsman has earlier ordered Binay Jr. dismissed and perpetually barred from public office over administrative offenses of misconduct and dishonesty concerning the issues surrounding this case.
In the decision, however, the Sandiganbayan said the prosecution “miserably failed to prove the required quantum of evidence in all these cases.”
“Basic in all criminal prosecutions is the presumption that the accused is innocent until the contrary is proved,” the court said. “Thus, the well-established jurisprudence is that the prosecution bears the burden to overcome such presumption; otherwise, the accused deserves a judgment of acquittal.”
“Concomitant thereto, the evidence of the prosecution must stand on its own strength and not rely on the weakness of the evidence of the defense,” it said.
The court also raised a provision under the Revised Rules of Evidence, which states that the degree of proof required to secure the accused’s conviction is “proof beyond reasonable doubt, which does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty.”
“Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind,” it noted.
Only the dispositive portion of the 202-page decision was immediately made available to the media; the court has yet to post its full decision.
Binay Sr. attended the promulgation along with his lawyers, but did not answer questions from the media when sought for comment.
