Illegal detention case versus Napoles an ‘injustice’: Sol-Gen
THE GOVERNMENT’S top lawyer on Wednesday said “injustice was done” to Janet Lim-Napoles when a local court convicted her in 2015 for the serious illegal detention of whistle-blower Benhur K. Luy.
Speaking in a news conference yesterday in his office in Makati City, Solicitor- General Jose C. Calida said the “[Makati Regional Trial Court] erred in convicting Napoles for the crime of serious illegal detention,” adding, “In this case, injustice was done to her.”
Napoles is tagged as the mastermind in the multimillion-peso scam on the alleged misuse of the government’s Priority Development Assistance Fund ( PDAF). She is currently imprisoned after she was convicted on April 14, 2015, for the illegal detention of Mr. Luy, her second cousin and former aide.
The Solicitor- General called the news conference following the release of a report by the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) baring a manifestation filed by the Office of the Solicitor- General (OSG) before the 13th Division of the Court of Appeals (CA) that allegedly “disfavored” witness Mr. Luy in the serious illegal detention case.
“When we look at the evidence, the transcript of records, there are many instances that will support the acquittal of the accused,” Mr. Calida said, pointing to Mr. Luy’s conduct during his supposed detention when he was able to meet his family, among others, as belying his claim for detention.
“Can you, in conscience, say that she should be convicted for the crime [of ] illegal detention?” Mr. Calida added.
‘FORTE’
Mr. Calida defended the OSG’s duty to file the manifestation, part of which reads: “Indeed the conduct and behavior of [Mr.] Luy during the period of his alleged detention belie the fact that he was detained or deprived of his liberty, contrary to the findings of the trial court in its April 14, 2015 decision.”
“Our office was asked to comment and file our pleading,” Mr. Calida said, adding, “I know if the decision has the quantum of evidence that is sufficient to convict and accuse of a crime should be proof beyond reasonable doubt.”
Mr. Calida also noted that in his 43 years of practicing law, “criminal law is my forte.”
He said that the intention of the filing was not “to acquit the person (Napoles),” but it was only “to let the [CA] know what is our opinion on the matter.”
But Mr. Calida also noted, when asked about Napoles’ illegal detention case in relation to her pending plunder and graft cases before the Sandiganbayan: “This serious illegal detention [ case] has nothing to do with the cases of [Napoles] on PDAF. These are two separate matters.”
Napoles has listed over a hundred public officials in the uncovered scandal, which saw three Philippine senators detained for plunder indictments in 2014.
Former senators Ramon “Bong” Revilla, Jr. and Jinggoy E. Estrada are currently detained in a custodial center in Camp Crame, as prosecutors had failed to secure from the court their transfer to a city jail. Senator Juan F. Ponce- Enrile, Sr. was released from hospital detention in 2015, the year of Napoles’ conviction, on humanitarian grounds.
The government counsel also sought to dismiss possible speculations regarding his comment on Napoles. “President Duterte does not instruct his Cabinet members on what to do.”
Pointing to the timeline of the OSG’s filing of Napoles’ “reply brief ” in September 2016, the PCIJ report noted that weeks before the filing, Mr. Duterte, on Aug. 21, 2016 spoke of pork-barrel case, saying while some solons are charged regarding the case, it was “not enough vindication for the Filipino people.”
The said “reply brief” prompted the OSG’s filing of the manifestation.
Presidential Legal Counsel Salvador S. Panelo, in a phone conference with reporters, said for his part: “The administration of Duterte will always follow what the rules, the laws, and the Constitution say regardless of who are the persons involved, whether that person is a controversial figure or a non-controversial figure.”
“Dapat ganyan para walang violation ng ethical conduct ang mga abugado ng gobyerno (Government lawyers should be like that, so there would be no violation of ethical conduct). I’m sure the OSG studied the case very well,” Mr. Panelo also said.
‘MYSTERIOUS COMMENT’
Mr. Calida also criticized the PCIJ for its “fertile minds,” adding: “You are inventing something which is unfair.”
He also challenged the media and the public to “look for the motive.”
“Who has the motive to make her (Napoles) suffer so she cannot — at that time, para hindi kumanta si Napoles (so Napoles will not spill the beans)?”
Asked if the previous administration of Benigno S. C. Aquino III may have had such a motive, he said: “It remains to be seen. We cannot call that right now.”
For her part, Senator Leila M. de Lima in a statement yesterday criticized the OSG: “It looks like this administration is bent on taking the side of every high profile crook and scoundrel the past administration was able to jail. I cannot imagine what justification the OSG has come up with this time in order to sabotage the criminal conviction the DOJ has successfully secured in the past administration.”
Ms. de Lima was the Justice secretary during these cases involving Napoles.
“Release Napoles, the number one enabler of plunderers in government, and we might as well dissolve our justice system and declare this government a government of criminals, where the innocent are imprisoned and the criminals liberated,” the senator added.
Sought for comment, the lawyer of Mr. Luy, Ramon Joseph Ian “Raji” O. Mendoza, told BusinessWorld in a text message: “Those issues have been fully answered to the satisfaction of the trial court. We are just as surprised as everybody that we have yet to receive a copy of the OSG’s mysterious Comment.” Mr. Mendoza would later release a statement along those lines.
He also said: “As a first impression, we believe that the Solicitor General’s Comment is superfluity, as we are not aware of any order from the [CA] requiring the OSG to file the subject manifestation. We are not aware of any recent developments that would have necessitated the filing of such Manifestation.”
“We can draw a number of conclusions from this Comment but we certainly hope that it does not aversely affect the serious illegal detention case with the CA as well as the PDAF cases before the Sandiganbayan,” Mr. Mendoza added. — with
and