Sandigan junks Binay bid for re-raffle of graft cases
Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang will not let go of former Makati Mayor Elenita Binay’s graft and malversation cases in connection with alleged irregularities in the purchase of P45 million worth of hospital supplies.
In an 18-page resolution dated Jan. 13, the antigraft court’s Special Third Division denied Binay’s motion for the four cases to be re-raffled off to separate court divisions, as well as her motion for Tang’s inhibition.
Binay’s camp had sought Tang’s recusal from the cases after the latter reportedly issued statements which were biased and prejudiced against her. During the Oct. 13 hearing on the motion to re-raffle the cases, Tang pointedly asked the defense panel if they were questioning the court’s impartiality.
Binay cited Tang’s statement—“If you are now saying that there should be appearance of impartiality, you are somehow casting aspersion on the impartiality of this court”—as an indication that the presiding justice was “personally offended” by her bid to re-raffle off the cases.
However, the court rejected her request as there was “no valid or just reason for the presiding justice to voluntarily disqualify herself from hearing these cases.”
It noted that “perceptions of bias from the mere tenor and language of a judge” were not enough basis to show prejudgment. Prejudice, the resolution stated, should be shown as coming from an “extrajudicial source” that would color the justice’s impression of the case.
Aside from denying Binay’s bid for Tang’s inhibition, the court also affirmed the propriety of holding a joint trial on the Ospital ng Makati cases at the Third Division.
Citing the Rules of Court and the Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan, the court said the case raffle committee opted to consolidate the cases because they “arose from the incident or series of incidents or they involve common questions of fact and/or law.”
It cited the prosecution’s argument that it would present almost the same witnesses and documents in all the four cases.
At the same time, the court also rejected Binay’s claim that holding a joint trial would create an impression of a “pattern” of procurement irregularities that would amount to a prejudgment of the cases.
The Third Division cases are based on the procurement of P45 million worth of allegedly overpriced sterilizers and hospital beds in 2000 and 2001.
Outside the Third Division, Binay won three of four cases filed against her over the purchase of supposedly overpriced city hall furniture between 1999 and 2000. A fourth case is still pending in the Fifth Division.
