MANILA, Philippines — The Sandiganbayan has dismissed graft and falsification charges against former Vice President Jejomar Binay, his son, former Makati Mayor Jejomar Erwin "Junjun" Binay Jr. and several others in connection with the Makati Science High School project.
In an 86-page decision promulgated on Dec. 13, 2024, the anti-graft court granted the demurrer to evidence by Binay and the others.
A demurrer to evidence is a legal motion filed by the accused in a criminal case. It essentially argues that the prosecution has failed to present sufficient evidence to support a conviction.
If the court grants the demurrer, it effectively dismisses the case, resulting in an acquittal for the accused.
The Sandiganbayan also dismissed 13 other criminal cases filed against the Binays and their co-accused.
As a result of the ruling, the respondents were allowed to reclaim their bail bonds and the travel restrictions imposed on them were lifted.
In 2018, the Ombudsman’s Office of the Special Prosecutor filed charges against the former vice president and his son, accusing them of rigging the procurement process for the Makati Science High School project, originally planned as a 10-story building with a four-story dormitory.
The case pertains to alleged anomalies in the procurement of architectural and engineering services worth P17.4 million, as well as construction services valued at P1.3 billion for the building.
The ruling
The Sandiganbayan acquitted the Binays and their co-accused, stating that the prosecution's evidence failed to substantiate the charges and relied heavily on witness testimonies.
The court also noted that former Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV, who is one of the witnesses, could not be considered a witness since he was merely participating in the Blue Ribbon Committee hearings on the issue in his capacity as a senator.
The Sandiganbayan said the prosecution's key witnesses lacked direct, first-hand knowledge of the allegations against the accused, rendering their testimonies of minimal evidentiary value.
“The prosecution failed to prove manifest partiality, or a "clear, notorious, or plain inclination or predilection to support one side or person rather than another." For instance, in the architectural and engineering services contract awarded to Infiniti, the prosecution made it appear that the contract was already earmarked in favor of Infiniti as the pre-selected bidder,” the court’s decision read.