Sandigan threatens Binay prosecutors with contempt
A senior justice of the Sandiganbayan threatened to cite the Ombudsman for contempt for sending its special prosecutors to court without the pertinent documents in the graft case it filed against dismissed Makati City Mayor Jejomar Erwin “Junjun” Binay.
Representatives of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), the prosecution arm of the Ombudsman, told the court that they were empty-handed and were unprepared to comment on the petition filed by Binay on Wednesday to dismiss the case against him for supposed lack of evidence.
Binay, through his lawyer Claro Certeza, had argued that the Ombudsman did not cite specific acts where he was allegedly liable for graft in connection with the P2.2 billion Makati car park project from 2007 to 2013.
Associate Justice Samuel Martires of the Sandiganbayan Third Division was piqued when prosecutors asked for time to reply to Binay’s petition since they did not have the complete case records.
Martires said the Ombudsman had enough time to provide them the records since it decided to indict Binay as well as his father, Vice President Jejomar Binay, and 12 others of graft last October.
“Should not the court accuse the Ombudsman of contempt for assigning prosecutors who are not in possession of documents?” Martires shot back.
Prosecutor Jacinto Dela Cruz admitted that they had only the case information that the Ombudsman filed last Feb. 19 and the Ombudsman’s resolution dated Feb. 7 denying Binay’s appeal.
He said the rest of the records were still being photocopied.
“So what do you want us to tell the Filipino people? That you are not prepared?” Martires went on.
He added that the prosecution’s unpreparedness was “tantamount to trifling with the court’s processes.”
Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice and Third Division chair Amparo Cabotaje-Tang eventually gave the prosecution 10 days to secure the documents and another 10 days to file their reply to Binay’s petition. She set the next hearing on April 11.
Binay’s lawyer said they asked the antigraft court to dismiss the case because the evidence was weak.
“The case should not prosper because they have no evidence but hearsay,” Certeza told reporters afterwards.
