Napoles elevates fresh PDAF cases to SC
Disagreeing with the findings of the Office of the Ombudsman, Janet Lim-Napoles asked the Supreme Court (SC) to issue a ruling “setting aside, reversing and nullifying” the two resolutions of the anti-graft office to charge her before the Sandiganbayan. In a 25-page petition for certiorari, lawyers Stephen David and Evita Magnolia Ansaldo argued that the high court must dismiss the cases “for patent lack of factual and legal basis.”
They claimed that Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales committed grave abuse of discretion when
she ordered the filing of charges even when the elements of the alleged crimes – like conspiracy and pattern of overt or criminal acts – were “not established” by anti-graft investigators and the National Bureau of Investigation.
Napoles, who is linked to at least 10 questionable nongovernment organizations that received P2.157 billion in pork barrel funds from 2007 to 2009, believes that she should not have been charged with malversation because she was not the public officer responsible for the release and utilization of government funds.
She said Morales merely “gave in to public opinion and completely disregarded all the rules on appreciation of evidence in resolving the cases.”
In its June 2, 2016 resolution, the ombudsman found probable cause to file cases against Napoles as co-accused of incumbent Davao Del Sur governor Douglas Cagas in connection with the alleged misuse of the latter’s Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or pork barrel amounting to P15.36 million in 2007 when he was still a congressman.
The ombudsman affirmed the ruling on Nov. 17, 2016 when it denied Napoles’ and Cagas’ respective motions for reconsideration.
Last March 24, the ombudsman formally filed before the Sandiganbayan two counts of graft, two counts of malversation and one count of direct bribery against Napoles and Cagas along with several other former officials of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) and the state firm Technology Resource Center (TRC).
In her petition, Napoles slammed the ombudsman for supposedly relying on the “hearsay, self-serving, incredible and totally inadmissible” testimonies of Benhur Luy and other pork scam whistle-blowers she described as “polluted sources.”
She alleged that the three were the “real principals” of the foundations that were involved in the scam and that they “should not be protected from prosecution.”
Her petition before SC was filed even when the Sandiganbayan Second Division has yet to rule on the motion for judicial determination of probable cause, in which she also prayed for the dismissal of the cases that stemmed from Cagas’ allocation of P15.36 million of his PDAF to the Countrywide Agri and Rural Economic Development Foundation (CARED) and Philippine Social Development Foundation Inc. (PSDFI) – two of the fake foundations allegedly put up by Napoles.
The ombudsman said field investigation revealed that the projects were never implemented and that Napoles and the other private respondents prepared fake delivery reports and other supporting documents “to conceal the fictitious nature of the transactions.”
Cagas is accused of receiving P9.3-million worth of kickbacks from Napoles in exchange for his PDAF allocation.
Meanwhile, Solicitor General Jose Calida asked in a tweet why Sen. Francis Pangilinan is objecting to having Napoles as a state witness.
“Is Liberal Party (LP) president Senator Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan afraid that pork barrel queen Janet Lim-Napoles would reveal the hypocrisy of the ‘Daang Matuwid’ regime of the previous administration?” Calida posted in his official Twitter account.
In three successive tweets, Calida pointed out that in the decision process on making an accused a state witness, only the prosecutors and the courts are usually involved.
“Why do you keep on sticking your nose in this judicial process,” read his second tweet that was followed by: “Are you afraid Napoles would unmask the supercilious hypocrisy of the unlamented ‘Daang Matuwid’ regime?”
Pangilinan earlier questioned the justice department’s plan to make Napoles a state witness on the controversy surrounding the release and use of P10 billion in Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF). He believes that Napoles would say anything just to save herself.
There are suspicions that officials during the term of former president Benigno Aquino III might also be involved in the scam. So far, only opposition lawmakers former senators Juan Ponce Enrile, Jinggoy Estrada and Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. have been charged.
Bong prepares for trial
As the trial on the plunder case against him begins on June 1, Revilla is now preparing his defense by asking the Sandiganbayan to issue a subpoena for the bank records of pork barrel scam primary state witness Benhur Luy and two other whistle-blowers.
His lawyers asked the Sandiganbayan First Division to order the production of Luy’s bank records as well as those of his mother Gertrudes and brother Arthur, arguing that this would be relevant during trial.
They also want the court to order the production of the bank records of whistle-blowers Marina Sula and Merlina Suñas.
They pointed out that the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), in a pending civil forfeiture case before Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 53, listed in February 2014 the bank accounts and other assets of Napoles, Luy, Gertrudes, Arthur, Sula and Suñas as being related to the pork barrel scam.
Revilla stressed that Napoles, the Luys, Sula and Suñas were even named respondents in the AMLC’s civil forfeiture case.
His camp wants to look into Benhur’s 30 bank accounts with Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (Metrobank), United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB), Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), Banco de Oro Unibank (BDO) and Metrobank Card Corp.
They also wanted to look at Arthur’s 21 bank accounts with BDO and Metrobank and Gertrudes’ three accounts with Metrobank, UCPB and Metrobank Card Corp.