Former VP Binay refuses to enter plea in overpriced building case
Former Vice President Jejomar Binay Sr. PHOTO BY MARC JAYSON CAYABYAB/INQUIRER.NET
Former Vice President Jejomar Binay Sr. on Wednesday refused to enter a plea before the Sandiganbayan during his scheduled conditional arraignment on charges related to the allegedly overpriced construction of the Makati City Hall Building II.
At the start of the scheduled arraignment, Binay initially did not make a plea and left it to his lawyers to inform the justices that he was resorting to the Rules of Court that allows an accused to refuse to enter a plea.
Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje Tang said that their rules in the Third Division means that, on Binay’s refusal to enter a plea, the court would enter a not guilty plea for the accused.
Binay lawyers agreed later on that the former vice president himself would express his refusal to enter a plea.
Tang asked Binay: “How do you plea, VP Binay?”
Article continues after this advertisement“I’m not entering a plea, your Honors,” Binay told the court.
Article continues after this advertisementBinay’s conditional arraignment followed the court’s denial of his motion to amend the terms of his conditional arraignment, thus giving way for the court to rule on Binay’s travel motion for a pilgrimage in Israel.
READ: Sandigan thumbs down Binay worry over travel arraignment
The court thus entered a not guilty plea for the former vice president.
Binay’s lawyers took careful steps to scrutinize the terms of Binay’s conditional arraignment to avoid prejudicing legal remedies, such as a motion to quash, which can only be filed before the arraignment of an accused.
Binay’s conditional arraignment comes exactly year after his defeat in the May 9, 2016 elections.
Tang assured Binay hat his legal remedies would not be prejudiced in his conditional arraignment.
READ: Binay seeks to modify his conditional arraignment in carpark case
An accused is required to be conditionally arraigned before a court could rule on the accused’s motion for leave. Conditional arraignment allows the court to have jurisdiction and try the accused in abstentia if the accused fails to return to the country.
The Office of the Special Prosecutor under the Ombudsman opposed Binay’s bid to be allowed to travel abroad for a spiritual journey in Israel from May 15 to 29.
READ: Gov’t lawyers oppose Binays’ bid to leave PH, cite pending raps
The prosecution said Binay would go on a pilgrimage with the rest of the family, including his wife, Dr. Elenita Binay, who also faces graft and malversation cases before two divisions in the Sandiganbayan.
This means the Binays would be abroad despite pending cases in the country, the prosecution said.
“They bought ought to be considered as a flight risk,” the prosecution said. “Not only are they traveling with immediate family members who happen to be in a similar situation as they are; both accused also failed to show other personal and professional reasons that will compel them to return to the country.”
Binay faces malversation, graft and falsification charges over the alleged overprice in the construction of the Makati City Hall Building II.
The pilgrimage would be led by Fr. Francis Gustilo, the pilgrimage chaplain and former father provincial of the Salesian Fathers in the Philippines.
Gustilo is also the spiritual facilitator of the Binays’ regular Tuesday Bible meetings at the Don Bosco Center in Makati.
In his travel motion, Binay said he is almost 75 years old and a family man who “believes this pilgrimage to the Holy Land is an exceptional case for a devout Catholic.”
READ: Ex-VP Binay, son seek court permit to go on Israel pilgrimage
The Binays also said they have no intention to flee their charges.
Three Binays were charged before the Sandiganbayan with graft and malversation charges over alleged anomalies when they served in turns as Makati mayor.
The former vice president was charged after he stepped down from his post and after his defeat in the 2016 elections.
he and his son, dismissed Makati mayor Jejomar “Junjun” Binay Jr. are co-accused in the graft, malversation and falsification of public documents charges in connection with the anomalous construction of the P2.2 billion Makati City Hall Building II.
READ: Citizen Binay faces graft, malversation, falsification raps over Makati parking building | Junjun Binay charged with graft, document falsification over carpark building
While the elder Binay was charged for allegedly rigging the first three phases of the building when he was Makati mayor, his son was charged for the fourth and fifth phases of the building when he succeeded his father in the city hall.
Binay Sr. served as Makati mayor from 1988 to 1998 and 2001 to 2010. He was elected vice president in 2010.
Binay Jr. was Makati mayor in 2010 until he was dismissed from service in 2015 due to the charges.
Binay Jr. had also been conditionally arraigned.
READ: Ombudsman orders dismissal of Junjun Binay
Binay Sr.’s daughters are also in government: Abby is now Makati mayor and Nancy is a senator.
Binay Sr.’s wife Elenita, who served as mayor from 1998 to 2001, faces graft and malversation raps before the Sandiganbayan Third Division over 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.
READ: Court denies Elenita Binay’s bid to defer graft, malversation hearings
She won her three graft cases.
The Sandiganbayan Fifth Division granted Dr. Binay’s demurrer to evidence in her P21.7-million graft case over the alleged overpricing of furniture for the city hall in 2000.
READ: Sandigan junks Elenita Binay’s P21.7-million graft case
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 acquits Elenita Binay, 2 others in overpricing case
In 2011, the Sandiganbayan Second Division dismissed a graft case against her over allegedly overpriced furniture worth P58.04 million purchased from October to December 2000.
She still faces another graft case in the Fifth Division over the anomalous purchase of furniture and fixtures worth P72.06 million in 1999. /atm
