Former Governor Casimiro Ynares Jr., one of the most powerful politicians in Rizal province, is likely to face jail time soon.
This after the Supreme Court junked his challenge to the Sandiganbayan, which he said refused throw out graft charges against him over his alleged purchase of overpriced fertilizers.
The SC’s Second Division dismissed Ynares’ petition for “failure to establish grave abuse of discretion” on the part of the anti-graft court, which denied his motion to quash charges last year.
In September, the Sandiganbayan ruled to proceed with Ynares’ trial despite a pending plea the former governor presented before the SC.
Ynares along with Romulo Arcilla had been accused of violation of Sections 3(e) and 3(g) of Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
The two allegedly entered into organic fertilizers supply contracts in 2004 and 2005 without a public bidding. Ombudsman prosecutors also alleged he organic fertilizer was bought despite the availability of a cheaper foliar fertilizer brand, resulting in an overprice of P1.67 million and P1.56 million for the two years, respectively.
Ynares filed for the dismissal of the charges, but the Sandiganbayan denied his motion, prompting him to bring his case before the SC.
The SC, however, told Ynares and Arcilla Jr. that they should have agreed to a trial at the Sandiganbayan after the rejection of their motion to quash instead of seeking relief before the high court.
“Such denial, therefore, may not be the subject of a petition for certiorari because of the availability of other remedies in the ordinary course of law,” the resolution stated.
The SC, however, did bit not give weight to the petitioners’ argument that the charges against them were defective for not alleging they were “public officers and employees charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions,” as provided in Section 3(e) of the anti-graft law.
They said the law only applies to such individuals, but the SC said it has already ruled that the last sentence of the invoked provision “is not a restrictive requirement which limits the application or extent of its coverage.”
“In any case, the Court finds no grave abuse of discretion committed by the Sandiganbayan in denying the Motion to Quash,” the resolution