Sandiganbayan junks plea to dismiss raps vs Genuino

THE Sandiganbayan has affirmed its resolution issued early this year denying the plea of former Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (Pagcor) chairperson Efraim Genuino to be acquitted in 19 graft and 20 malversation of public funds charges filed against him.

In a six-page resolution, the Sandiganbayan Third Division through Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotajetang denied the motion for reconsideration (MR) filed by Genuino, seeking the reversal of its resolution issued last January 19, 2023.

The anti-graft court held that the contentions raised by Genuino in his MR were mere rehash of his arguments raised in earlier motions.

“They have been duly considered, squarely addressed, and found to be without merit in the Court’s resolution, subject of the present motion for reconsideration,” the Sandiganbayan stressed.

The cases involved Pagcor’s P26.7 million purchase of film tickets in 2009 for the movie “Baler” for the benefit of BIDA Foundation Inc.

In his MR, Genuino reiterated that the Sandiganbayan is bound to follow the Supreme Court (SC) en banc decisions promulgated on April 27, 2021 and June 15, 2021 (both entitled Genuino v. Commission on Audit, et al.) involving notice of disallowances (NDS) issued by the Commission on Audit (COA) against Pagcor.

Genuino argued that in the said cases, the Court ruled that the P26.7 million Pagcor money spent for the advance purchase of Baler film tickets was under Pagcor’s operational expenses fund (OPEXFUND) which, he argued, can be disbursed without being subjected to government auditing and accounting rules and regulations.

The petitioner noted that the SC also ruled in the said cases that all other Pagcor funds, including the financial assistance to private entities such as the Bida Foundation, and the OPEXFUND are part of Pagcor’s private corporate funds, which are separate and distinct from the 5-percent franchise tax and 50-percent share of the government, thus outside of the audit jurisdiction of COA.

He also argued that the purchase of the Baler movie tickets did not result in any undue injury to the government or any private entity, nor did it give unwarranted advantage or benefit to any party or person.