Court finds probable cause to try Junjun Binay in Makati parking building cases

The Sandiganbayan has found probable cause to proceed with the trial of former Makati Mayor Jejomar Erwin "Junjun" Binay Jr. for graft and falsification over the alleged overpriced construction of the Makati parking building.

In a 65-page resolution, the anti-graft court's Third Division denied Binay's urgent omnibus motion for judicial determination of probable cause for lack of merit.

The court said such motion was "a mere superfluity," as it was the court's "incipient duty" to find the existence or non-existence of probable cause once the case Informations have been filed.

The Ombudsman charged Binay Jr. with two counts of violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and six counts of falsification of public documents as defined under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

According to the Information of the cases, Binay Jr. and the other respondents who are former Makati City officials “conspired” in giving unwarranted benefits and preference to Hilmarc’s by awarding to the company the contracts for the construction of the P2.28-billion Makati City Hall Building II also referred as the Makati parking building.

The Ombudsman, in its resolution finding probable cause for the filing of the cases, said the implementation of the project, which was divided into six phases, took place from 2007 to 2013 despite the absence of approved design standards, contract plans, agency cost estimates, detailed engineering and programs of work, among others.

However, Binay and his co-accused in the filed cases were only being charged for Phases IV, V and/or the construction stage of the project.

The Ombudsman had also identified Binay Jr.’s father, former Makati Mayor and former Vice President Jejomar Binay Sr., as the one responsible for the design stage and Phases I, II and III of the allegedly anomalous project, for which he is facing four counts of graft, nine counts of falsification of public documents and one count of malversation.

In the charge sheets, the Ombudsman's Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) said all the five biddings for the construction stage of the project were rigged in favor of Hilmarc's. The OSP said the invitation to bid was never published, resulting to the declaration of Hilmarc's as the sole bidder for the construction contracts.

The OSP said that in both Phase IV and V, the contracts were awarded to Hilmarc’s through “simulated bidding”

The OSP further said that the supposed evaluation of project proposals of several other companies was conducted with "extraordinary speed" as "for one hour only, the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) completed the entire negotiation proceedings where bid proposals of seven architectural firms that allegedly participated in this multi-million project were opened and evaluated.”

The court, in its resolution, said there is probable cause to believe that the crimes alleged against Binay were committed.

"A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed and that it was committed by he accused," the court explained.

The court said all elements of falsification are present in the case, even if Binay, in his motion, insisted that he was not even a signatory or author of the allegedly falsified affidavits of publication.

He also argued that his approval of the Bids and Awards Committee resolutions is not even an element of falsification.

The case is the same for the graft cases.

"After an assiduous examination of the record of these cases, the Court finds that sufficient evidence exists to sustain a finding of probable cause that the crime of violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 was committed and the above-named accused are probably guilty thereof and must be held for trial," the court said.

Aside from this, the court also said the issues raised by the accused in their motions are "matters of defense" and can best be examined during the trial proper.

"Indeed, 'the presence or absence of the elements of the crime is evidentiary in nature and is a matter of defense that may be passed upon after a full-blown trial on the merits,'" the court said.

Sought for comment, Atty. Daniel C. Subido, counsel for Binay, said: "We will be filing the appropriate motion for reconsideration. We remain confident that after due process, Mayor Junjun's innocence shall be vindicated."

The court has set the arraignment for Binay Jr. and his co-accused on May 18. —KG, GMA News