The Sandiganbayan has ruled that it will proceed with hearing the graft case filed against former Makati City mayor Elenita Binay and former councilor Ernesto Aspillaga over the purchase of alleged overpriced furniture for the Makati City Hall.
In a five-page resolution, penned by Associate Justice Rodolfo Ponferrada, the anti-graft court denied the defendants’ joint motion for reconsideration, which asked the Sandiganbayan to reverse its July 27 resolution denying their request to have the charges dismissed for being invalid.
Prosecutors from the Office of the Ombudsman accused the two of causing undue injury to the government in the total amount of P13,253,587.67 for alleged overprice in the purchase of office furniture for the Makati City Hall between December 1999 and February 2000.
Binay is the wife of incumbent Makati City Mayor and United Opposition president Jejomar Binay.
Binay and Aspillaga argued that the charges filed by the Office of the Ombudsman were invalid.
They said while prosecutors alleged that the total injury to the government was P13,253,587.67, the amount was actually the total contract cost. They noted that the prosecutors did not show that the furniture had not been delivered to the City Hall.
The Ombudsman’s resolution, however, the overprice was supposedly limited to P3,604,377.10.
Due to this discrepancy, the respondents said the case against them was fatally defective and should be dismissed for failing to properly inform them of the exact nature of the offense imputed against them.
The Sandiganbayan, however, disagreed with Binay and Aspillaga.
“The Court believes that the alleged defect in the information (without quashing the same) can be cured by amendment by specifying therein the correct amount of undue injury caused to the City of Makati or the unwarranted benefits allegedly given to (contractor/supplier) Office Gallery Inc.,” the Sandiganbayan said in its latest resolution.
The anti-graft court said even if there is a discrepancy in the amount of “undue injury” to the city government, the “variance does not affect the validity of the information because there is still undue injury.”
The anti-graft court said whether Binay and Aspillaga are guilty of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019 (or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), as well as the amount of undue injury to the city government and unwarranted benefits given to the Office Gallery, are subject to the evidence that will be presented during the trial.
The Sandiganbayan directed the prosecutors to submit the necessary amendment in the information – referring to the charges filed – to reflect the correct amount of undue injury.