MANILA, Philippines - The Department of Justice (DOJ) recommended yesterday the indictment of businessman Francis de Borja for alleged bribery in connection with the controversial case between Manila Electric Co. (Meralco) and the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) at the Court of Appeals last year.
In a 12-page resolution, the investigating panel led by Justice Undersecretary Ernesto Pineda said they found probable cause to file charges of corruption of public officials as penalized under Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code and violation of Presidential Decree 46.
“The validity and merits of a party’s defense or accusation, as well as admissibility of testimonies and evidence are better ventilated during trial proper than at the preliminary investigation level,” explained the investigating prosecutors.
It was CA Associate Justice Jose Sabio Jr. who filed the bribery complaint against De Borja at the DOJ, accusing the latter of offering him P10 million to give way to another magistrate that would handle the case and rule in favor of Meralco.
Sabio said De Borja allegedly visited him at the Ateneo de Manila Law School in Makati City on the night of July 1 last year when the supposed bribe offer was made.
De Borja vehemently denied the accusation in his counter-affidavit filed last December, saying it was Sabio who asked for P50 million to inhibit himself from the Meralco-GSIS case.
He even stressed that Sabio failed to present any eyewitness to prove his claim.
But the DOJ panel ruled that probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt but only requires “more than bare suspicion,” which they felt was established in the investigation.
The bribery allegation triggered a Supreme Court investigation on the matter, which resulted in the dismissal of CA Eighth Division senior member Associate Justice Vicente Roxas and suspension of Sabio for two months without pay after finding them guilty of “multiple violations of the canons of judicial conduct, dishonesty, undue interest and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.”