In a 35-page resolution, the court dismissed the graft case filed in 2005 against Bungubung for failure of the prosecution to present sufficient evidence to sustain its allegations.

The resolution was penned by Associate Justice Gregory Ong and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose Hernandez and Samuel Martires of the anti-graft court’s fourth division.

In dismissing the three-year-old graft case, the court cited the failure of the prosecution to present in court two witnesses who claimed to have personal knowledge that Bungubung demanded and received P100,000 from Combat Security and Executive Protection Agency in exchange for his supposed assurance to award the security services contract.

The court was referring to Combat Security president Roberto Doromal and secretary Evalyn Cruz.

It noted that both Doromal and Cruz have executed affidavits about the alleged payoff but were not called to the witness stand.

Instead, the prosecution presented Ombudsman investigator Manolo Mabini, who testified that he personally interviewed the two Combat Security officials.

But the court held that the testimony of Mabini was hearsay and therefore do not bear any weight.

"Without evidence as to their truthfulness or veracity, the allegations remained mere allegations and did not rise to the dignity of proof. Mabini admitted on cross-examination that he himself has no personal knowledge as far as the demand for sum of money is concerned," the court said.

The court rejected the prosecution’s claim that Bungubong also solicited a Mitsubishi Pajero from another security agency, Star Detective Agency, and had it registered in the name of his unemployed son, Norman.

"What the prosecution presented were merely presumptions and suppositions that accused and his son requested and or received from Star Detective Agency something in return for the grant of the contract," the court said.

It added: "No connection could be established by the prosecution as to the ownership of the Mitsubishi Pajero by the son of accused Bungubung to the alleged irregularity in the bidding (of the security services contract)."