NO NEED FOR NAPOLES TO TESTIFY, SAYS LAWYER OF WHISTLEBLOWERS
A former lawyer for whistleblowers on Tuesday ruled out the need for Janet Lim-Napoles to testify in cases related to the P10-billion pork barrel scam.
“Yes, Ma’am. Because how come that we’re able to gather information about these without Napoles? So we do not need Napoles in all of these cases,”’ lawyer Levito Baligod said on ANC Headstart.
It was Baligod who helped collate whistleblowers’ testimonies and documents to prove in court that Napoles masterminded the scam.
All the pieces of evidence, Baligod said, are now in the custody of the Department of Justice (DOJ). “We do not need Napoles here.”
Witness protection
The DOJ granted Napoles’ request that she be provisionally admitted into the government’s Witness Protection Program.
On the same public affairs’ show, Napoles’ lawyer, Stephen David, agreed that the Office of the Ombudsman could stop his client from testifying as a witness on cases filed against her in the Sandiganbayan.
“We’re not discussing about the Sandiganbayan cases. That is her (Conchita Carpio Morales’) jurisdiction. If she doesn’t want Mrs. Napoles, then so be it,” David said.
“These are new cases,’’ he added.
Special Prosecutor Edilberto Sandoval on Monday said that the Ombudsman wanted to keep Napoles detained for the pending cases in which she was a coaccused and not a state witness.
“If they include these pending cases … that is what we’re objecting [to]. In future cases, OK. But here, Napoles is no longer a witness. She is an accused,” Sandoval said.
Selective prosecution
Baligod also claimed that the ruling Liberal Party during the Aquino administration “selected who will be prosecuted” over the scam.
“Because what we submitted to the DOJ before included not only PDAF (Priority Development Assistance Fund or the lawmakers’ pork barrel) but also DAP (Disbursement Accelera- tion Program), other insertions,” he said.
“We even mentioned about the P403 million allocated with DOTC (Department of Transportation and Communication) for the purchase of equipment but were not delivered,” he added.
Focus on 2007 to 2009
Baligod agreed with observations that then Justice Secretary Leila de Lima ignored all other facts of the case.
“There was a specific instruction from the Ombudsman and Secretary De Lima to focus on 2007 to 2009,” he said, when asked why he did not pursue cases against other people.
The lawyer also said that P100 million was allegedly given to the Liberal Party, but only P70 million was remitted. He did not elaborate.
Baligod denied making a statement that Napoles had given an amount to Sen. Franklin Drilon.
Drilon, an LP member, shrugged off on Tuesday the report that Napoles had handed him P100 million as contribution to the political party.
“Obviously, the statement is hearsay; a witness told attorney Levito Baligod. But Baligod himself said in the same interview this morning that the allegation is hard to believe. And he is correct because it is not true,” Drilon said in a statement.
David said the Napoles camp would present Baligod as a witness.
How come that we’re able to gather information about these without Napoles? So we do not need Napoles in all of these cases Levito Baligod Lawyer