Ombudsman: No immunity for Janet

MANILA, Philippines - There is no way Janet Lim-Napoles can qualify as state witness as she “appears to be among the most guilty of all respondents” in the criminal cases – including the non-bailable offense of plunder – filed in connection with the pork barrel scam, according to the Office of the Ombudsman.

In a ruling dated June 4 and released yesterday, the ombudsman also upheld an earlier decision to file plunder and graft charges against Senators Juan Ponce Enrile, Jinggoy Estrada and Ramon Revilla Jr. for allegedly conniving with Napoles in skimming billions of pesos from their Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), the official term for the congressional pork barrel.

In a separate decision dated June 2, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales also said they rejected the motions for reconsideration as well as the application for immunity from prosecution of Rhodora Mendoza, Victor Roman Cacal and Dennis Cunanan.

Cunanan was officer-in-charge of the Technology Resource Center.

“There is no absolute necessity for their respective testimonies, and there are other direct evidence available, both testimonial and documentary, for the proper prosecution of the offenses committed,” the ombudsman’s order read.

Allowed to turn state witnesses were whistle-blowers and witnesses Benhur Luy, Marina Sula, Merlina Suñas, Mary Arlene Baltazar and Simonette Briones.

The Office of the Ombudsman said it is now ready to file criminal information for plunder and violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act with the Sandiganbayan against the senators and the others.

Once the cases are lodged, the anti-graft court will have the cases raffled off to four of its five divisions, as Fourth Division chairman Associate Justice Gregory Ong had offered to inhibit from the case after being accused of knowing Napoles based on a photograph that made the rounds in the media. The Supreme Court is investigating the matter.

After the filing of the cases with the Sandiganbayan, the presiding justice is expected to issue warrants of arrest and hold departure orders.

‘Verbatim repetitions’

In junking the motions for reconsideration of Enrile, Estrada and Revilla, the ombudsman said their arguments “carry verbatim repetitions of the issues and claims raised” in their respective counter-affidavits.

The three are being accused of collectively pocketing more than P597 million in kickbacks or commissions from pork-funded projects.

“Evidently, the motions for reconsideration are rehashes of the arguments previously raised by them and already resolved by this Office,” the ombudsman said.

In its joint rulings, the ombudsman also found no violation of the respondents’ right to procedural process as its order for the three to file counter-affidavit was compliant with Rule 13, Section 6 of the Rules of Court.

The finding of probable cause, the ombudsman stressed, was not based on suspicion but on sworn complaints, testimonies of witnesses, PDAF public documents, a Commission on Audit (COA) report, business ledgers, corporate papers of Napoles’ NGOs, results of field verification and admissions from some respondents themselves.

The special panel of prosecutors and graft investigators who conducted the preliminary investigation into the case is composed of Christian Uy as chairman, and Francisca Serfino, Ruth Laura Mella, Anna Francesca Limbo and Jasmine Ann Gapatan as members.

In a 66-page Joint Order on the case against Enrile and other respondents, the ombudsman also denied the motions for reconsideration filed by Jessica Lucila Reyes, Jose Antonio Evangelista II, Francisco Figura, Marivic Jover, Antonio Ortiz, Alan Javellana, Maria Julie Villaralvo-Johnson, Romulo Relevo, Chita Jalandoni, Filipina Tolentino Rodriguez, Emmanuel Alexis Sevidal, Sophia Daing Cruz, Gondelina Amata, Ofelia Ordoñez, Mario Relampagos, Rosario Nuñez, Lalaine Paule, Marilou Bare, Janet Lim Napoles, Jo Christine Napoles, James Christopher Napoles, Eulogio Rodriguez, Dorilyn Agbay Fabian, Nitz Cabilao, Ronald John Lim, Renato Ornopia and John Raymond de Asis.

One of the respondents, Consuelo Lilian Espiritu, was indicted for only one instead of two counts of graft after she established that she did not process or sign the other set of disbursement vouchers involving the Technology Resource Center, the agency to which Espiritu is connected.

On Revilla’s case, Morales denied the motions for reconsideration filed by Napoles, lawyer Richard Cambe, Ofelia Ordoñez, Francisco Figura, Ma. Ninez Guañizo, Chita Jalandoni, Maria Julie Villaralvo-Johnson, Gregoria Buenaventura, Mario Relampagos, Rosario Nuñez, Lalaine Paule, Marilou Bare, Romulo Relevo, Ronald John Lim, Alan Javellana, Gondelina Mata, John Raymond de Asis, Sophia Cruz, Marivic Jover, Antonio Ortiz, Consuelo Lilian Espiritu, Emmanuel Alexis Sevidal and Eulogio Rodriguez.

The ombudsman, however, granted the motion of respondent Romulo Relevo after he established that he did not participate in any of the subject transactions in the case.

On Estrada’s case, the ombudsman denied the motions for reconsideration of Francisco Figura, Marivic Jover, Antonio Ortiz, Emmanuel Alexis Sevidal, Sophia Daing Cruz, Gondelina Amata, Gregoria Buenaventura, Chita Jalandoni, Alan Javellana, Maria Ninez Guanizo, Maria Julie Villaralvo-Johnson, Mario Relampagos, Rosario Nuñez, Lalaine Paule, Marilou Bare, Janet Napoles and John Raymond de Asis.

Relevo, however, was indicted for just one count instead of five counts of graft because he was able to establish that he did not process or sign four disbursement vouchers involving the National Agribusiness Corp. (NABCOR).

Acceptance, disbelief

Estrada said he would let the law take its course while Revilla – through his lawyer – vowed to contest the ombudsman’s decision before the Supreme Court.

“I will go wherever they want me to go and surrender,” he said while calling the ombudsman’s deliberation on his case moro-moro (scripted).

He stressed he has no intention of evading arrest.

He said he and his supporters were almost certain that his motion for reconsideration would be dropped.

“It’s expected,” he said. “We cannot expect the ombudsman to reverse its own decision.”

Revilla’s lawyer Joel Bodegon said they would file a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.

“It is not true that we did not have any new argument in our motion for reconsideration,” Bodegon said in reaction to the ombudsman’s argument for junking Revilla’s motion for reconsideration.

“Our suspicion is that they did not read our motion. We have two new arguments,” Bodegon added.

He argued that the ombudsman violated due process when it used the statement of one of the witnesses against his client without providing him with the copies of the affidavits.

For Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago, the dismissal of the three senators’ motions for reconsideration had proven “there is a God, after all.”

“As a former RTC judge, I take the humble opinion that the separate motions did not present any new evidence or any new argument. Therefore, like most courts do with pro forma motions for reconsideration, the ombudsman should consider them as sham, dilatory and frivolous,” Santiago said.

Now that the MRs have been denied, Santiago said the next step is to file the complaints against the three senators before the Sandiganbayan.

“Automatically, the filing of the complaints will trigger the issuance of warrants of arrest against the three senators,” Santiago said.

Bail still possible

While plunder is a non-bailable offense under Philippine laws, Santiago said the three senators would still be given a chance by the Sandiganbayan to prove that the evidence presented against them is not strong enough to deprive them of their right to bail.

“The distinction is simple and easy to understand. In law, there is a difference between a right and a privilege. Every person has a right to bail, but if the person is charged with a non-bailable offense, he loses the right. Instead, the law merely gives him a privilege by giving him the chance to show at a mini-trial that evidence of guilt is not strong,” she said.

“If evidence is not strong, he will be granted bail. If evidence is strong, he will be denied bail and will have to stay in a detention cell at the PNP headquarters,” she added.

Santiago said that she expects the lawyers of the three senators to go to the Supreme Court “and maybe even to other forums to delay the criminal proceedings.”

“I humbly urge the Sandiganbayan court to conduct hearings on the motions for bail by using a summary procedure,” she said. “If evidence of guilt is strong, the accused should remain in detention to prevent them from fleeing as fugitives from justice, or financing a program of terrorism to distract the public.

“The best proof that one of the accused has used terrorist tactics to sow confusion and fear among the public is the recent obviously manufactured problems raised by the simultaneous release of the lists of pork scammers. Watch out for similar diversionary tactics,” she added.

Santiago also chided Enrile for declaring that that he is ready to represent himself in court if allowed to do so.

“Any boasting on the part of the accused is just whistling in the dark,” she said.

“For example, Enrile said that he might represent himself. Everybody knows that a lawyer who represents himself is a fool,” she pointed out.

At Malacañang, Presidential Communications Operations Office Secretary Herminio Coloma Jr. said the ombudsman’s ruling “represents a significant step forward in the judicial process.”

He said the issue has raised public awareness on the importance of public accountability.

“We hope that with sustained vigilance, the people’s quest for truth and justice will be fulfilled,” Coloma said. – Marvin Sy, Christina Mendez, Aurea Calica