Gigi Reyes’ bid to dismiss plunder case junked
Lawyer Jessica Lucila “Gigi” Reyes will have to remain in detention as the Sandiganbayan ruled to proceed with the trial of her non-bailable plunder case in connection with her alleged involvement in the multibillion-peso pork barrel scam.
Reyes, the former chief of staff of ex- Senate president Juan Ponce Enrile, filed a motion to quash the P172.83million plunder case in June of last year based on the supposed “confusing and confounding” charge sheet of the Office of the Ombudsman.
Reyes said the case information sheet failed to state her specific and overt criminal acts related to the corruption of the Priority Development Assistance Fund or pork barrel.
Reyes also said the additional information of the case submitted by the ombudsman to the Supreme Court involving her and her co- accused Enrile only made the charges against her “even more confusing.”
But voting 4-1, the Sandiganbayan Special Third Division affirmed the validity of the case information against Reyes, which the Office of the Ombudsman filed in June 2014.
In its 32-page decision promulgated on Jan. 3 and penned by Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang, the anti-graft court said the facts were sufficient to charge Reyes with plunder.
Associate Justices Oscar Herrera Jr., Sarah Jane Fernandez and Reynaldo Cruz concurred with the ruling, while Associate Justice Samuel Martires dissented.
The Third Division also reminded Reyes that she was not a party to the motion for bill of particulars filed by Enrile before the SC, thus she had no right to question the validity of the bill of particulars submitted by the ombudsman before the high court.
The SC, in its resolution in August 2015, had ordered the Office of the Ombudsman to submit a bill of particulars to supply additional information to back the plunder case against Enrile.
The high court’s action was in connection with Enrile’s motion seeking further clarification about the information of the case.
“The (SC) would not have granted Enrile’s motion for a bill of particulars if the information were not valid or if the averments in the information failed to charge an offense,” the Sandiganbayan said in its resolution.
The Third Division further said it was “too late in the day” for Reyes to seek relief and question the validity of the case information against her since she had already been arraigned in July 2014.
The court said that under Section 9, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Court, a bill of particulars could only be filed before the accused’s arraignment.
The court also maintained that even without the prosecution’s bill of particulars, the original case information against Reyes contained the elements of plunder; that she and Enrile were public officials when the crime was allegedly committed; that they conspired with alleged pork barrel scam mastermind Janet Lim-Napoles to repeatedly receive kickbacks, and that they accumulated ill-gotten wealth in the total of P172,834,500.