Former Makati mayor Dr. Elenita Binay appealed the dismissal of her motion to re-raffle her malversation and graft cases for the anomalous purchases of hospital beds and sterilizers.
In her motion for reconsideration, the wife of former vice president Jejomar Binay said there is a “dire need” to revisit the Sandiganbayan Special Third Division’s resolution which she said was issued with grave abuse of discretion.
READ: Antigraft court trashes Binay’s plea for re-raffle of cases
Binay through her lawyers maintained her position that her cases should be re-raffled to different divisions because the charges were unrelated and involved different sets of purchase orders and thus different transactions, different periods of time and documentary exhibits.
She added that conducting a joint trial of her cases would violate her constitutional right because the transactions which happened in different periods would be made to appear to establish a pattern.
Binay said the consolidation of her cases would violate her right to a speedy trial, as the waiting that would entail in presenting sets of evidence between the two cases would cause undue delay.
Binay also took exception to the court’s pronouncement that her motions for a re-raffle was meant to delay the cases.
She said the issue of joint trial had been raised to the court as early as Feb. 2015, during Binay’s arraignment.
“There is absolutely no basis, therefore, for the Honorable Court’s pronouncement that Accused only belatedly raised the issues in order to delay the resolution of the instant cases,” Binay said.
In its resolution, the anti-graft court Special Third Division said Binay’s motion to re-raffle the cases was “bereft of merit.”
The court said the consolidation of Binay’s cases before the Third Division is “proper,” and thus there was no need for re-raffling these.
The court reminded Binay that the consolidation of criminal cases is a matter of judicial discretion according to the rules of court.
The resolution was penned by Presiding Justice and chairperson Associate Justice Amparo Cabotaje Tang, and concurred in by Associate Justices Sarah Jane Fernandez and Zaldy Trespeses.
Binay sought separate trials for her cases because a consolidation of her charges would create a “premature judgement.”
She added that the consolidation of her cases would give the “impression” that the allegations formed a “pattern.”
READ: Elenita Binay seeks separate trials
The prosecution opposed her move, saying that her motion was only meant to delay trial and that the consolidation of her cases would serve to fast track the disposition of the case.
READ: Prosecutors nix Elenita Binay’s move for separate trials
Dr. Binay, who was mayor from 1998 to 2001, was charged with two counts of violations of Section 3 (e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for causing undue injury to the government and giving unwarranted benefits to a private party, and two counts of malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code.
The graft and malversation cases stemmed from alleged irregularities in the procurement of hospital beds worth P36.43 million in 2001 and P8.83 million worth of dry heat sterilizers in 2000 for the Ospital ng Makati.
Binay sought a re-raffle of her cases following her legal victories in other Sandiganbayan divisions.
The Sandiganbayan Fifth Division granted her demurrer to evidence in her P21.7-million graft case over the alleged overpricing of furniture for the city hall in 2000.
Meanwhile, the Sandiganbayan Fourth Division acquitted her of graft in the alleged overprice of P13.25-million purchase of furniture for the city hall in 1999.
READ: Sandigan junks Elenita Binay’s P21.7-million graft case | Sandigan acquits Elenita Binay, 2 others in overpricing case
Her husband former vice president Jejomar Binay Sr. and her son former Makati mayor Jejomar “Jun-Jun” Binay Jr. also face graft, malversation and falsification of public documents charges for their roles in the allegedly overpriced Makati car park building when they were Makati mayor.
The court recently dismissed Binay Sr.’s similar motion for a re-raffle of the case. CDG/rga
RELATED STORIES