The Sandiganbayan has acquitted two former top executives of the Land Bank of the Philippines (LandBank) who were implicated in the controversial sale of the bank’s P4.2 billion stake in Meralco back in 2008.
In a resolution dated June 14 but released only this Monday, the anti-graft court’s Third Division overturned its earlier decision rejecting the appeal of ex-Landbank president and CEO Gilda Pico and former vice president for local currency department Carel Halog to dismiss their graft case.
“After a second hard look at the established facts, the court finds the subject motion for reconsideration meritorious,” the court said.
Pico and Halog were among the LandBank executives sued by the Ombudsman over allegations of conspiracy to sell the state-owned bank’s stake to Meralco to the tune of P4.2 billion to the Global 5000 Investment via share purchase agreement (SPA).
Court records showed that Halog proposed selling LandBank’s 4 percent interest in Meralco via a block sale at P90 per sha, which included all 46.597 million common shares.
Graft investigators, meanwhile, said it was Pico who entered into an SPA with Global 5000 December 200808.
The Ombudsman said the LandBank executives violated Section 3(g) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019) by entering into such a contract, which it claimed was “manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government.”
The Supreme Court (SC), however, ruled that there was no probable cause for the prosecution to indict the LandBank executives of graft.
Later, in December last year, the SC acquitted Pico and Halog along with other LandBank officials, owing to the absence of evidence showing malice between the accused and Global 5000 in executing of the SPA.
“Having dismissed the criminal case, there is no need to resolve the other issues raised in the petition,” the SC said.
In its ruling, the Sandiganbayan said it has to comply with the SC ruling, the final arbiter, “whose decisions all other courts should take their bearings.”
“The [Sandiganbayan] is aware of its place in the hierarchy of courts. With these unmistakable guideposts, it becomes the imperative duty of the court to rule accordingly,” it said.