Tha Supreme Court has affirmed the resolution issued by the Office of the Ombudsman indicting former Makati City Mayor Elenita Binay for graft and malversation of public funds in connection with the alleged oversupply of hospital beds to the Ospital ng Makati (OsMak) in 2001.
In a 16-page ruling penned by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the SC’s Third Division junked Binay’s petition to nullify the Ombudsman’s consolidated resolution of August 29, 2013, which ordered her inclusion in the graft complaint filed against 15 other local government officials for violation of Republic Act 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and for malversation of public funds.
Binay was initially cleared of any criminal liability by the Office of the Overall Deputy Ombudsman in a resolution issued on May 9, 2011. However, then-Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales reversed the ruling and instead approved the Office of the Special Prosecutor’s recommendation that she be added as respondent.
Binay’s inclusion in the two criminal cases was anchored on the motions for reconsideration filed by her co-respondents, who said they could not be held liable for malversation because they were not the funds’ custodians.
They pointed out that it was Binay who not only was the custodian, but was also the approving authority in their disbursement.
In her petition before the SC, Binay sought the nullification of the Ombudsman’s consolidated resolution finding probable case against her, as well as the issuance of a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the Office of the Special Prosecutor and Sandiganbayan from continuing with the trial or any other proceeding in the criminal cases against her.
She argued that since neither the complainants Commission on Audit nor Roberto Brillante moved for reconsideration of the May 9, 2011, resolution, it turned final and executory and, thus, could not be reviewed or reversed by public respondent Office of the Ombudsman.
She maintained that the doctrine of finality of judgment applies to preliminary investigations it had conducted.
She also claimed that her right to due process was violated when she was not served with copies of the motions for reconsideration of her coaccused.
Binay argued that she was not informed of the allegations contained in these pleadings, which effectively deprived her of her right to be notified and heard.
She also contended that the Ombudsman’s failure to immediately resolve the complaints against her constitutes a violation of her right to speedy disposition of cases.
However, the SC ruled that the Ombudsman did not act with grave abuse of discretion when it determined the existence of probable cause against Binay.
It held that contrary to the former mayor’s position, the May 9, 2011, resolution had not yet attained finality when the Ombudsman received the initial finding.
“This Court will not interfere with the Office of the Ombudsman’s determination of probable cause except when it acted with grave abuse of discretion,” the Court ruled.
The Court added that Binay’s failure to receive a copy of the motions for reconsideration filed by her co-accused does not result in violation of her right to due process.
“Petitioner does not deny that she moved for reconsideration of the assailed August 29, 2013, Consolidated Resolution. She was given the opportunity to question the decision against her. She was not denied due process,” the Court pointed out.
The contract with Apollo Medical Equipment and Supplies was questioned by the COA because of the lack of public bidding.
City officials allegedly relied on Apollo’s claims that it was the sole distributor of the New Jersey-based hospital bed manufacturer UGM-Medysis.
However, it turned out that the hospital beds were not manufactured by UGM-Medysis but a Taiwanese company identified as Juhng Mei Medical Instruments Co. Ltd.
The manufacturer’s invoice for the transaction showed that the items’ actual total cost was merely P2,447,376.14, which was well below P36,431,700, the amount paid to Apollo.