Court upholds case vs contractor of P1.1-B Macapagal Boulevard

The Sandiganbayan First Division has upheld the validity of the graft charges filed against one of the three private contractors of the P1.1-billion President Diosdado Macapagal Boulevard in Manila, which was allegedly overpriced by at least P360 million. On February 5, the anti-graft court issued a resolution junking the motion of Jesusito D. Legaspi of JD Legaspi Construction, who sought the dismissal of his case based on technicality. According to Legaspi, the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction is only limited to trying cases involving government officials, thus the court is not authorized to try his case because he is a private defendant. In his argument, Legaspi, cited a September 3, 2007 ruling of the Supreme Court’s Special Third Division on the case of Henry Go against the Sandiganbayan. The ruling, according to Legaspi, stated that sections 3-e and 3-g of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act were only applicable to government officials. Section 3-e of R.A. 3019 prohibits public officers from "giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence." Section 3-g forbids government officials from “entering, on behalf of the government, into any contract or transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby." However, the Sandiganbayan overruled Legaspi’s argument, saying the ruling in Go’s case was not unanimously decided by the justices of the Supreme Court. The ruling is now the subject of a pending legal challenge, according to the Sandiganbayan. The anti-graft court said that because the high court has not yet finalized its decision on Go’s case, the applicable rulings to Legaspi’s case are the Supreme Court’s decision in the cases of Balmadrid vs Sandiganbayan, and Meneses vs Sandiganbayan. In the said two cases, the high court ruled that “private individuals can be charged and convicted, in conspiracy with public officers involved with violation of Section 3-e of RA 3019." “After a serious deliberation, the Court finds the Motion to be without merit. The Henry Go case is concededly still subject to a motion for reconsideration with a prayer that it be referred to the Supreme Court en banc, and therefore the same is not yet final. To say the least, it has not binding effect yet," the court’s resolution said. - GMANews.TV