Here’s a statement from the camp of former QC Mayor Herbert Bautista after receiving a guilty verdict.
HERBERT BAUTISTA – The former Quezon City mayor was found guilty of graft and after receiving the verdict, here’s a statement from his camp.
Former Quezon City Mayor Herbert Bautista has been found guilty of graft by the Sandiganbayan along with his former city administrator Aldrin Cuña. This pertains to the 2019 procurement of an Online Occupational Permitting and Tracking System (OOPTS). This involved an amount of Php 32.11 million.
Bautista is set to face prison time for a minimum of six years and a maximum of 10 years. He was also banned from holding public office as a result of their graft conviction.
They approved the full payment of Php 32,107,912.50 to Geodata Solutions Inc. despite the latter’s failure to deliver a working Online Occupational Permitting and Tracking System. Officers of the city government’s Business Permits and Licensing Department (BPLD) testified the acceptance in June 2019 but the usage to enable paperless transactions at city hall was not applied.
In a statement, the camp of Bautista expressed that the former mayor is innocent and did “not commit any act which constitutes the offense charged. The vote 2 versus 1 formed a “cloud of doubt” among Justices and added that the pieces of evidence did not support the guilty verdict.
The statement furthered into stressing these points:
- “The Project itself was duly delivered to and received by the Quezon City Government, and therefore, the payment to the supplier was valid.”
- “It must be emphasized that he never personally and financially gained anything from this Project. Not a single centavo went to our client’s pocket.”
- “Most importantly, there was no harm or injury suffered by anyone, let alone the Quezon City Government and its people since they were ultimately able to use this Project.”
According to them, the fight continues and they will be filing a motion for reconsideration. They hope that the Sandiganbayan will take time to have a second hard look at the evidence presented that presents their client’s innocence.
What can you say about this? Let us know in the comments!