Ombudsman to pin down Napoles in ‘pork’ scam

The Office of the Ombudsman has reiterated that it would be able to present as evidence against detained businesswoman Janet Lim-Napoles her own sworn statements, which she executed when she applied to be a state witness in the multibillion-peso pork barrel scam.

In a four-page opposition paper filed on Aug. 30, state prosecutors urged the Sandiganbayan’s First Division to affirm its earlier order denying Napoles’ motion to have her two sworn statements excluded from the list of documentary evidence against her.

Napoles is on trial for plunder as co-accused of former senator Ramon Revilla Jr. in connection with the alleged misuse of his Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF).

Revilla allegedly received P224.5 million in kickbacks from Napoles in exchange for allocating his PDAF to fake non-government organizations linked to the businesswoman.

Last June, Napoles asked the anti-graft court to exclude from the prosecution’s list of marked exhibits her two sworn affidavits that she executed on May 12 and May 26, 2014.

Napoles said the prosecution should not be allowed to present a witness from the Senate to testify on the existence and authenticity of her affidavits.

She executed the affidavits in the hope of being accepted in the Witness Protection Program (WPP) of the Department of Justice.

But former justice secretary and now Sen. Leila de Lima denied Napoles’ application for WPP, saying that she is among the most guilty in the pork barrel scam.

Napoles pointed out that under Section 11 of Republic Act 6981 or the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act, if the application for WPP is denied, “sworn statement and any other testimony given in support of such application should not be admissible as evidence except for impeachment purposes.”

Napoles also cited Section 17 Article 3 of the Constitution, which states that “no person should be compelled to be a witness against himself.”

The prosecution argued that the Sandiganbayan must uphold the denial of Napoles’ motion for lack of merit.

Government prosecutors said Napoles’ plea was “premature” as her sworn affidavits were marked by the prosecution as documentary exhibits but are not yet formally offered before the court as evidence.

The prosecution pointed out that under the Rules of Court, the formal offer of evidence should be made after a party has rested its case.