MANILA – The Sandiganbayan has dismissed the graft and falsification cases against former Makati City Mayors Jejomar Binay and his son Jejomar Erwin “Junjun” Binay Jr. and their co-accused over irregularities in the construction of the Makati City Science High School building.

In an 86-page resolution, the Special Fifth Division granted the Binays' and other co-accused's demurrers to evidence, junking the charges of graft and falsification of a public document.

"In sum, the prosecution's evidence utterly failed to prove all of the charges. The presumption of innocence in favor of an accused in a criminal case is a basic constitutional guarantee," it said.

In 2018, the Office of the Ombudsman ordered the filing of multiple counts of graft and falsification charges against the former Vice President and his son for allegedly conspiring in the anomalous procurement processes of the P1.3 billion Makati Science High School building.

The Ombudsman identified irregularities in the procurement of architectural and engineering consultancy services for the design of the building worth P17.45 million and procurement of construction services worth P1.3 billion to favor Infiniti and Hilmarc, respectively.

The anti-graft court said the prosecution "heavily anchored and relied" on the testimonies of witnesses engineer and former Makati City local government unit employee Mario Hechanova, lawyer and Makati City resident Renato Bondal, Senator Antonio Trillanes IV and former Makati City vice mayor Mercado.

"A most basic rules is that a witness can only testify on matters that he or she knows of his or her personal knowledge," the Sandiganbayan said.

"It was revealed that all of them lacked personal knowledge as to the facts constituting the charges against the accused and had only been speculating  on their own about what happened in the procurement of MSHS Building project," it added.

The Special Fifth Division noted the "apparent defects" in the witnesses' testimonies.

"All the purported key witnesses for the prosecution had a critical flaw: they lacked direct, first-hand knowledge of the truth regarding the charges against all of the accused and as such, their testimonies hold no probative value scant consideration from this Court," it said.

The Sandiganbayan said the prosecutor failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in the graft charges. It did not show that the modes of manifest partiality, evident bad faith and gross inexcusable negligence.

"A review of the prosecution evidence shows that the elements of the crime of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 9184 were not proven beyond reasonable doubt," it said.

"In the instant cases, the prosecution presented evidence allegedly showing accused's violations of procurement laws and issuances but utterly failed to prove with clear and convincing evidence the presence of any of the three (3) modes of committing violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019," it added.

The anti-graft court stressed that violation of procurement laws does not amount to violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

"There is absolutely no evidence that any of the accused had any dishonest design or corrupt intent as the motive for such, i.e. the receipt of monetary benefit or gain by any of the accused was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The graft charges therefore should be all dismissed," it said.

The Sandiganbayan likewise cited the failure of the prosecution to provide evidence to support the falsification charges.

"The prosecution failed to prove the criminal intent of the accused in allegedly falsifying the documents mentioned in the respective Information. The authorship of the allegedly falsified bid documents in the whole process of procurement for the design and construction of the MSHS Building was not established by the prosecution," it said.

The anti-graft court said the prosecution called on Hechanova as witness, but his testimony "seemed highly questionable and marked with inconsistency."

“It was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the existence of malicious intent on the part of Binay Sr. and Binay Jr. when they affixed their signatures on the BAC resolutions,” it said.

“The records, however, are bereft of any proof which would show that the accused knew of the alleged falsified supporting documents or sham public bidding at the time he signed the documents,” it added.

Despite the supposed issues in procurement, the anti-graft court said there was no damage cause to government or to a third person because of the project.

"The requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt insists the every circumstance against guilt and in favor of innocence must be accounted for. Suspicion, no matter how strong, should not sway judgment," the Sandiganbayan said.

"Where doubt exists that hinges on the guilt or innocence of the accused, the Court is compelled to acquit and uphold the constitutional presumption of innocence in favor of the accused," it added.

With the dismissal of several criminal cases, the Special Fifth Division cancelled and ordered returned the bail bonds of the accused. It also lifted and set aside the Hold Departure Orders issued against all the accused in the foregoing cases.