2 former Makati execs cleared of graft

MANILA, Philippines — The Sandiganbayan has acquitted two former officials of the city government of Makati in a graft case involving the allegedly anomalous deal entered into during the term of former mayor Elenita Binay.

In a 36-page ruling promulgated on Feb. 21, the court’s Fifth Division said the Office of the Ombudsman failed to prove its allegations against former city treasurer Luz Yamane and general services department head Ernesto Aspillaga.

The court said the prosecution was not able to present evidence showing Yamane and Aspillaga acted in bad faith in the award of the contract to the Office Gallery International Inc.

The Fifth Division earlier dismissed the case against the primary accused, Binay, due to insufficiency of evidence.

Filed by the ombudsman in 2006, the case stemmed from the purchase of office partitions and furniture worth P72.07 million in 1999.

The ombudsman said the bidding was rigged in favor of the Office Gallery International.

It said the items were overpriced by P21.536 million.

The Sandiganbayan said none of the 10 witnesses presented by the prosecution testified that they had first-hand knowledge or direct participation in the purported rigged bidding.

The court said the prosecution admitted there was no other witness privy to the supposed rigging. 

The prosecution earlier sought that Aspillaga, as a member of the bids and awards committee, be discharged as a respondent in the case in order to become a state witness.

The prosecution’s motion, was denied by the anti-graft court for its failure to meet the requirement provided under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

The Fifth Division said aside from the non-admission of Aspillaga’s affidavit as a state witness, he also recanted the same when he took the witness stand to defend himself.

Aspillaga said there was no irregularity in the bidding and that the purchases in question were validated through regular audits.

The court said the allegation of overpricing was also not proven, especially as the prosecution’s witness from the Commission on Audit admitted that no actual inspection of the delivered items was conducted.