‘Pork’ accused: Not guilty

MANILA, Philippines - The Sandiganbayan yesterday entered a not guilty plea for Sen. Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. after he refused to enter one himself in the plunder case filed against him over alleged misuse of his pork barrel funds.

Alleged pork barrel fund scam operator Janet Lim-Napoles and Revilla’s chief of staff Richard Cambe, on the other hand, pleaded not guilty.

Around a dozen of their co-accused led by former Technology Resource Center (TRC) director general Dennis Cunanan entered the same plea.

Revilla appeared before the Sandiganbayan for the arraignment and repeatedly said “no plea your honors” after each complaint accusing him of pocketing P224.5 million was read to him, prompting the court to enter a not guilty plea on his behalf.

Clad in a barong Tagalog, Revilla stood for over an hour as each of the 16 charges of graft was read in court, with Associate Justice Efren de la Cruz, chairman of the First Division, asking him to enter a plea for each case.

The accused who were not arraigned yesterday were either at large or have motions still to be resolved by the Sandiganbayan.

Revilla was accompanied by his counsel Joel Bodegon, his wife Cavite Rep. Lani Mercado and supporters that included showbiz columnist Lolit Solis.

Outside the courthouse, supporters in white showed up clapping, some with clenched fists and shouting “Mabuhay si Senador Bong!”

Dozens of supporters came from different towns in Cavite.

Napoles, wearing a hooded sweater, arrived with Revilla at the anti-graft court for the proceedings, accompanied by dozens of policemen escorting them outside and inside the courtroom.

Both were not allowed to speak to media before, during and after the arraignment, which lasted for three hours because of the oral arguments presented by prosecutors and defense counsels.

Defense counsels said Revilla’s decision to face the arraignment but not to enter a plea stemmed from the pending motions, including a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court questioning the Office of the ombudsman’s finding of probable cause that led to his indictment.

Amendment junked

Government lawyers apparently suffered a huge loss after the Sandiganbayan denied their motion to amend the plunder complaint against Revilla, Napoles, Cambe, Ronald John Lim and Raymund de Asis.

Before the respondents were arraigned, ombudsman prosecutors led by acting Director Joefferson Toribio moved for revisions in the criminal complaint.

However, the defense counsels led by Bodegon and Napoles lawyer Stephen David vehemently objected to the motion, noting the prosecution’s right to revise the charge cannot be abused.

Bodegon said the Office of the Ombudsman’s last minute decision to amend the original complaint is a “judicial admission” that it is void and Revilla should be released from detention.

Citing a 2010 Supreme Court ruling, Bodegon said not all defects in a criminal charge are curable by amendment, especially when the revisions change the whole theory of the prosecution – from alleging that there was conspiracy to now claiming that there is none, and that Revilla’s co-accused are mere accomplices.

“If the element of conspiracy is removed, the warrant of arrest is void ab initio (from the very beginning),” he stressed.

Among the parts of the charge sheet being sought to be amended is that which states that Revilla and his fellow respondents conspired with one another.

David agreed and asked that the motion to amend be denied, complaining the prosecution is trying to destroy their defense by changing the allegations, which is why the arraignment should proceed so as to prevent government lawyers from pushing through with such scheme.

Favoring Napoles

Responding to the objections, Toribio said the original plunder complaint, read in its entirety, definitely points to Revilla and other public officials as the ones being charged in conspiracy with private individuals like Napoles.

He explained the proposed amendments only seek to eliminate vagueness and cure issues that may later cause undue delay to the trial.

Bodegon, however, countered that changing the phrase to “collaborating with private individuals” means an entirely different thing because the participation of private individuals in the alleged plunder of pork barrel funds is being degraded from mastermind to accomplice.

He even went as far as theorizing that the Office of the Ombudsman might be out to downgrade the charges against Napoles so that she can be later turned into a state witness against Revilla because the prosecution has no evidence against his client.

“This is a totally new animal. This also proves that the evidence is not strong and bail should be granted,” Bodegon said, arguing that if the amendment is allowed, Revilla’s right to due process will be trampled upon.

David seconded, saying the elements of plunder are absent in the original plunder charge against his client and the prosecution now wants to change the complaint in order to comply with the requirements of the Plunder Law.

Toribio, working with a panel of ombudsman prosecutors, responded by insisting that the new complaint does not charge another or different offense and the prosecution simply wants to add or state its position, which is allowed by the rules of court as a matter of right.

Halting the argument, 1st division member Justice Rafael Lagos asked ombudsman lawyers who wrote the original plunder charge why the same was filed even though the prosecution was poised on amendments.

“Even if we deny your motion, will you still be happy? Are you still confident?” asked the magistrate, to which Toribio answered “Yes, your honor.”

With this, De la Cruz declared the Sandiganbayan is denying the motion to amend but is allowing formal amendments like clarifying mere spellings or middle names but not the substantial parts of the original charge sheet.

For Jinggoy and Enrile, too

Similar motions to amend the plunder complaints against Senators Jinggoy Estrada and Juan Ponce Enrile were filed by the Office of the Ombudsman, also seeking to make the same changes to the charge sheets.

The Fifth Division chaired by Associate Justce Roland Jurado will hear the motion for Estrada today, while the Third Division headed by Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang will hear the case against Enrile on Tuesday, July 1.

Officials of the Office of the Ombudsman could not be reached for comment on the denial of their first motion to amend before the First Division.

As a rule, ombudsman lawyers handling cases filed before the Sandiganbayan are not allowed to grant media interviews, even after attending hearings.

Malacañang, however, expressed confidence the government prosecutors are seeking to build strong, credible and convincing cases against the three senators implicated in the pork barrel scam.

Presidential Communications Operations Office Secretary Herminio Coloma Jr. said they are confident that the Office of the Ombudsman and the Department of Justice did the necessary work to build stronger cases against the accused.

“It is our view that… the Office of the Special Prosecutor acted well within the rules of court that allow the prosecution to present its case in the manner it deems best, consistent with its duty and mandate,” Coloma replied when asked whether the ombudsman’s decision to amend the information was an admission that the case was defective.

The ombudsman moved to amend the criminal information against Enrile and Estrada just hours after the Sandiganbayan First Division trying Revilla for plunder rejected a similar motion meant to improve the indictment against the lawmaker.

As in Revilla’s case, the ombudsman wanted to emphasize that Enrile, in his plunder case, “was the one who amassed, accumulated and acquired ill-gotten wealth in connivance or in conspiracy with his accused public officer and private individuals” and not just Napoles.

Coloma clarified though the Office of the Ombudsman was separate and independent from the executive branch, which also conducted a thorough investigation through the National Bureau of Investigation and the DOJ.

“They submitted product of their case buildup to the Office of the Ombudsman. The Office of the Ombudsman conducted its own process. So in our view, the concerned agencies of government did what was necessary. They did their homework. They allotted ample time to evaluate the merits of the cases being filed before the courts and we would just let the courts decide,” Coloma said.

“We are confident that sufficient work has been done to build a credible and convincing case,” he further said, adding government officials did what they thought was right on the matter.

Seeking bail

The Sandiganbayan, meanwhile, scheduled the hearings for the motions for bail of Revilla, Napoles and Cambe to be held every Thursday in the morning and afternoon starting July 10.

Napoles has filed a petition, along with fellow respondents Lim and De Asis, asking the Sandiganbayan to grant them bail.

Napoles, through her counsel David, said the testimonial and documentary evidence that the Office of the Ombudsman has against her are weak to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of plunder.

She said the testimonies of the whistle-blowers and state witnesses that government lawyers intend to present before the Sandiganbayan “are not credible and inadmissible as evidence.” – With Aurea Calica, Reinir Padua