MANILA, Philippines – The Sandiganbayan denied the appeal of a former personnel of the Department of Finance (DOF) to quash the graft charges against him in a scam which happened 30 years ago involving millions of pesos of tax credit certificates.
The Sandiganbayan Third Division denied the motion of former DOF senior tax specialist Mark Binsol that the anti-graft court set aside an October 30, 2024 ruling which denied his prayer to quash the charges against him.
Binsol told the court that because of the years of delay in the investigation of their case, he was denied his right to a speedy disposition of his cases.
Binsol was among the co-accused when the Office of the Ombudsman in 2017 45 counts of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019) against DOF officials and executives of a garment company in connection with the alleged illegal issuance of tax credit certificates (TCC) worth P112.61 million from 1995 to 1998.
Named defendants in all 45 cases were former Finance Undersecretary Antonio Belicena (+), One-Stop Shop Inter-Angecy Tax Credit and Duty Drawback Center (DOF Center) Deputy Executive Director Uldarico Andutan Jr., and private defendants Melchor Tan, Genoveva Tan, Julio Tan Jr., Blanquita Patawaran-Tan, Edgardo Olandez, Bernard Farin, Edmund Arandia, Michael Ray Quimpo, Alicia Bautista, Cristina Castillo, Leonardo Raña, Elena Buenaventura, and Dondon Pamatmat – incorporators or officials of Mannequin International Corporation.
Named co-accused among the DOF-Center were Textile Division reviewer Asuncion Magdaet (43 counts), clerk Emelita Tizon and tax specialist Annabelle Diño (six counts each); tax specialist Merose Tordesilla (five counts); clerk Cherry Gomez and senior tax specialist Charmelle Recoter (four counts); planning officer Maria Cristina Moncada, senior tax specialist Sylvialina Daguimol, and administrative aide Gemma Ortiz-Abara (three counts); senior tax specialist Mark Binsol, and tax specialists Purita Napeñas and Gregoria Cuento-Evangelio (two counts); and planning officer III Rowena Malonzo-Maño, and tax specialists Manuel Rigor III, Paul Patricio Senador and Marife Cabadin (one count each).
During the hearing, the prosecutors said Mannequin Corporation was illegally granted TCCs even if it was not qualified for the privilege because it did not export any product. Prosecution also said the garment company also used falsified documents in its application.
In his last motion, Binsol said he was not remiss in his rights as he filed a motion to quash immediately after his arraignment. He also said that the Sandiganbayan Second Division had likewise granted a similar motion from accused Magdaet.
In its resolution issued March 20, 2025, the Third Division first told Binsol that the decision of one division of the Sandiganbayan is not binding on any of the other six divisions of the special court as they are co-equal and independent from each other.
The Third Division then said it found no merit in Binsol’s arguments. The court said that a defendant’s right to speedy disposition of cases has limitations as the rules require the court to consider the facts and circumstances of the case.
The court noted that the Ombudsman’s Field Investigation Office formally filed the complaint only on December 27, 2016. Then Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales approved the indictments in March 2017, and the cases were filed in court a month later.
“Considering that the period taken for fact-finding investigations prior to the filing of the formal complaint shall not be included in the determination of whether there has been inordinate delay, it took the prosecution a period of four years and four months to conduct and terminate the preliminary investigation and file the case,” said the Sandiganbayan.
The cases, the court noted, implicated 80 individuals, covered 53 tax credit certificates transactions, and government losses computed at P112,606,076, finally resulting in the filing of 45 graft cases.
To go through the immense volume of evidence and the complexity of the issues “made the delay inevitable.” The court said that because of this the defendants did not suffer any prejudice since the length of time it took to resolve the complaints was justified.
“Considering the foregoing attendant circumstances, we hold that there was the length of time spent was not unreasonable. Even if there was a delay, the same was not inordinate, vexatious, capricious, and oppressive, but was brought about only by the nature and peculiar circumstances of these consolidated cases,” the Sandiganbayan said. – Rappler.com