No revised rap vs Bong Revilla
MANILA, Philippines–The government prosecutors’ failed bid to amend the plunder charges against Sen. Bong Revilla to paint him as the central figure in the misuse of his pork barrel funds on Thursday gave rise to assertions that the case was defective and should be dismissed or that they wanted to picture Janet Lim-Napoles as not the guiltiest so they could use her as a state witness.
But Malacañang rejected the view that the case against Revilla—and possibly the plunder cases the Ombudsman has brought against Senators Jinggoy Estrada and Juan Ponce Enrile as well—is weak and likely to be thrown out.
The Sandiganbayan’s First Division on Thursday denied the prosecution’s motion to amend the information against Revilla to show that it was he and not Napoles who amassed ill-gotten wealth by embezzling P224.5 million in public funds in connivance with several people, including the businesswoman.
The defense opposed the prosecution’s motion, arguing that the amendment of the original information would raise questions about the court’s basis for issuing warrants for the arrest of Revilla and his coaccused last week.
“We will deny the motion to amend the information insofar as the substantial amendments are concerned,” Associate Justice Efren de la Cruz, division chair, said, indicating that the court would issue a formal resolution.
Napoles has always been pictured as the brains behind the P10-billion pork barrel scam that the Inquirer exposed in July last year, but she is not a government official and cannot be accused of plunder, which the defense has pointed out in questioning the plunder charges the Ombudsman has brought against her.
Unexplained charge
The prosecutors have not explained the plunder charges against Napoles, but the motion they brought on Wednesday to amend the information against Revilla may be a nod to the defense and at the same time an effort to correct a flaw in the case.
The prosecution said, however, that the charges against Revilla could stand even without the amendment.
Joefferson Toribio, lead prosecutor in Revilla’s case, insisted during the hearing on Thursday that the original information against Revilla charged the senator with plunder in a conspiracy with private citizens, including Napoles.
He said the proposed amendments merely sought to “eliminate vagueness and cure issues that may later cause undue delay to the trial.”
Eventually, after a back and forth between prosecution and defense, Associate Justice Rafael Lagos asked Toribio: “Even if we deny your motion, will you still be happy? Are you still confident [with your case]?”
“Yes, your Honor,” Toribio replied.
Justice De la Cruz then handed down the ruling denying the motion, saying the court would allow only minor amendments such as spellings or middle names but not changes to “substantial” parts of the original information.
Unsupported charge
Napoles’ lawyer, Stephen David, said the original information did not support the charge of plunder against the businesswoman, as she is a private citizen.
David said the prosecution’s belated move to amend the information put the court in an awkward position because the justices decided last week that there was probable cause to order the arrest of Revilla, Napoles, the senator’s staff member Richard Cambe, and Napoles’ driver-bodyguard John Raymund de Asis and nephew Ronald John Lim based on the charges filed by the Ombudsman.
The court also ordered the arrest of 27 others accused of graft with Revilla.
Revilla’s lawyer, Joel Bodegon, said the prosecution’s plea was intended to allow Napoles to become a state witness to bolster the case.
Revilla was arraigned on plunder and graft charges Thursday but he refused to enter a plea. The court entered a plea of not guilty for him.
He and Cambe filed petitions for bail last week.
No basis
Bodegon said the prosecution’s attempt to introduce substantial amendments to the plunder charge bolstered the senator’s position that the case against him had no basis.
“The denial of the motion is a confirmation that there is no case against Sen. Bong Revilla,” Bodegon told reporters.
“The [prosecution’s] motion under the rules of court is called a judicial admission that won’t need other evidence. That is conclusive as against the prosecution. That will become a recurring refrain in our defense in favor of Senator Revilla,” he added.
Bodegon also said the motion meant the original information against Revilla was void, making the issuance of the arrest warrant and the commitment order for the senator also void so he should be released from custody.
Cunanan state witness
Bodegon said the prosecution’s motion was also intended to allow former Technology Resource Center (TRC) Director General Dennis Cunanan to become state witness in the trial of the graft charges against Revilla.
Sen. Bong Revilla shows up at the Sandiganbayan’s First Division on Thursday for his arraignment on plunder charges. The government prosecutors’ failed bid to amend the plunder charges against Sen. Bong Revilla to paint him as the central figure in the misuse of his pork barrel funds on Thursday gave rise to assertions that the case was defective and should be dismissed. LYN RILLON
He said Revilla could not have been the mastermind and that the senator had nothing to do with the pork barrel scam.
Amado Valdez, former law dean of the University of the East and a board member of Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila, said the implication of the prosecution’s plea to paint Revilla as the central figure in the pork barrel scam was that Napoles could later become a state witness.
If the charge sheet had been amended, Napoles would effectively be just a tool of Revilla and therefore not the guiltiest, Valdez said.
He explained that while the plunder charge could remain, there was a great difference between plunder as committed with senators in conspiracy with Napoles as principals and plunder committed by senators with Napoles as just a tool of the senators.
Long-lasting implications
Valdez said the prosecution’s motion to amend the information would have long-lasting implications for the case.
“Well, the defect is that they are showing a bad card because the steps they took, in going back on the original case, could indicate there was no strong evidence, which was why they’re planning to make her a state witness. You’re amending the information to allow her to be state witness, that’s the implication,” Valdez said.
“It’s as if they’re opening a small hole in a dam. If these holes become numerous, the dam would burst,” he added.
Valdez also said the prosecution’s move could be used by the defense to claim the evidence was weak and therefore the accused should be allowed bail.
Asked if the prosecution’s failure to amend the information showed the case was lost, Valdez said he could not say because he did not know what evidence the prosecution had.
“They may have other evidence in their hands,” he said.
Defective information
Lawyer Raymond Fortun, who represents some of the complainants in the pork barrel scam cases, said the case against Revilla may be defective and could be dismissed.
He said in a phone interview that the prosecution’s motion to amend the information “implied admission” of the “defect in the language of the information.”
“If it appears (in the information) that Napoles was the one who engineered and masterminded the misappropriation of the [public funds], that does not go with the definition of plunder,” Fortun said.
“The problem is, if you look at the information, Napoles is the mastermind and all the public officials were recipients of kickbacks,” he said. “So the information may be defective.”
‘They did their homework’
In Malacañang, Communications Secretary Hermino Coloma said 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.”
“We are confident that sufficient work has been done to build a credible and convincing case,” Coloma said.
He gave credit to the Department of Justice and the National Bureau of Investigation for “doing their homework” in building the case against the public officials and their alleged conspirators in the pork barrel scam.–With reports from Christian V. Esguerra and Christine O. Avendaño
Originally posted at 12:39 am | Friday, June 27, 2014
RELATED STORIES
Lawyer: Plunder rap revisions expose weak case
Sandiganbayan to hear Friday amended plunder raps vs Estrada
