Last week, the blog featured the alleged P150 million in Ben Hur Luy’s accounts. Also last week, the DOJ Secretary vowed that the investigation report on the 3rd batch of PDAF or pork barrel respondents, consisting of PNoy allies, will be on her desk two weeks from then. That means USec JJ’s deadline to submit the report to the DOJ Secretary falls due on Tuesday — this coming Tuesday. (on Tuesday therefore, it is appropriate to use the words: “maniningil kami, marami kaming pautang pero hindi pera, maniningil kami” 🙂 ) This week, let’s look at the investigation of the alleged unexplained wealth of VP Binay (“unexplained” at best): From the point of view of evidence, based on reports from ABS-CBN, Inquirer, and Rappler, the following is a summary of the alleged Binay Billions or “Baloloy Billions” or “Limlingan Billions” ♦ ♦ ♦ ADMITTED (interview of Abigail Binay), ESTABLISHED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE (bank records) in VP Binay’s name together with his finance officer Limlingan:P 221 Million Binay-Limlingan joint accounts BDO and Metrobank, from “campaign contributions” 2009 onwards (not declared in SALN, declared in SOCE) ♦♦ ♦ ADMITTED (statement of VP Binay’s spokesperson), ESTABLISHED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE (bank records): CANADA TRANSACTIONS,payments made by VP Binay or his group to Synnovate, Synnovate Ltd. and David Rink Consultancies, a market research firm in Canada: From joint accounts, transferred US $43,000, $35,000, and $45,000 to Synnovate
♦ ♦ ♦ ADMITTED (statement of VP Binay’s spokesperson), ESTABLISHED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE (bank records). MORE CANADA TRANSACTIONS. From Limlingan account to a Canadian bank, $20,000, $73,000, and $51,000. — based on the admission that the money was used for services rendered by the Canadian firm for VP Binay, this Limlingan account therefore holds VP Binay’s money ♦ ♦ ♦ PARTLY ADMITTED AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF THE JOINT ACCOUNTS, BINAY-LIMLINGAN (interview of Abigail Binay that VP Binay and Limlingan have joint accounts), ESTABLISHED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE (bank records): P 3.5 Billion deposits/withdrawals: either joint or individual accounts of Binay and Limlingan, (“the AMLC monitored transactions of $330,000, $250,000, and $317,000 — and deposits and withdrawals that amount to more than P3.5 billion from 2008 to 2014”) or: ♦ ♦ ♦ NOT ADMITTED BY VP BINAY’S GROUP, AS FAR AS THE LIMLINGAN ACCOUNT IS CONCERNED, AS THEIR MONEY : Limlingan P2 Billion transaction September 2010 (Unexplained), two separate transactions to two trust fund accounts at P500 Million each (or P One Billion). Total: P3 Billion ♦ ESTABLISHED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE (bank records). The AMLC also observed other transactions in Binay’s other accounts, this time with Security Bank, PNB, RCBC Savings Bank – accounts under Binay’s name or owned jointly with Limlingan and Crystal from 2008 to 2012. Five accounts ♦ ♦ ♦ NOT ADMITTED BY VP BINAY’S GROUP AS THEIR MONEY BUT ADMITTED THAT THE HOLDER DOES NOT OWN/ NOT CAPABLE OF EARNING THIS KIND OF MONEY: ATE EBENG ACCOUNTS, P 1.8 Billion. (VP Binay’s executive assistant, Eduviges ”Ebeng” Baloloy’s accounts holds some P1.8 Billion in deposits and investments in several financial institutions) ♦ NOT ADMITTED BY VP BINAY’S GROUP AS THEIR MONEY, but “UNEXPLAINED WEALTH” according to AMLAC: Bank accounts of TIU, LEE, CHONG, and 16 other associates
(i think, from the point of view of the legal team: Today, there will be silence from VP Binay, Abigail Binay, and the spokesperson on these transactions until they regroup to assess with the lawyers and the media bureau)
Criminal liability arising from the #ValenzuelaFire tragedy which resulted in 72 or more deaths depends on the facts that could be established by a thorough investigation — the following are the criminal provisions applicable: 1.If the workers were locked up/ had been locked up (either within the compound, or inside the building, or on the second floor, etc.) the criminal provision on serious illegal detention, a capital offense, is applicable. 2.If there is criminal negligence (failure to observe diligence, care, caution, etc.) the provision on the “quasi-offense” of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, applies, 72 or more counts. 3.CITY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS: If the building is found to be not compliant with the Building Code of the Philippines and Fire Code of the Philippines, the city government officials who issued the necessary building permits and fire safety permits are all liable under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act punishable with a minimum of ten years imprisonment each for each count. These city government officials are the City Engineer, the staff of the City Engineer’s Office, the building inspector, etc., and the Chief of the Bureau of Fire Protection and staff, and the fire safety inspector etc. The Valenzuela city government therefore has a conflict of interest here and should not be allowed to participate in any investigation, even in and especially with, evidence-gathering. The Valenzuela city mayor quickly absolved himself and the city government of any responsibility by saying: “look at the building, it’s still standing up, that means it’s compliant with the requirements of a building permit. It’s the fault of the bureau of fire protection and safety”. Not so fast. The National Building Code of the Philippines covers not just the foundation and posts of a building.
The doors, aisle, passageways, stairways, floors, roof, ceiling, etc. must also be compliant with the provisions of the Building Code and Fire Code. If the design, structure, materials, or any of the doors, corridors, passageways, stairways, etc. is/ are not compliant with the safety requirements as provided by the Building Code and the Fire Code: all those who issued and signed the permits (City Engineer, the staff of the City Engineer’s Office, the building inspector, etc., the Chief of the Bureau of Fire Protection and staff and the fire safety inspector, etc. ), who turned a blind eye, and the owners, are criminally liable.
(based on experience and the records, litigation of a criminal case like this in the Philippines however takes at least ten to fifteen years — at the trial level, not yet including appeal).
This is without prejudice to additional liability on the part of the owners if they are found to have violated the Labor Code, including provisions on occupational safety.
(just to cover all possibilities — if the fire had been intentionally set, the crime is arson and murders upon the perpetrators).
