Napoles lawyer: Luy amassed wealth through Maya Santos
Benhur Luy: No-show. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO
MANILA, Philippines–The lawyer of alleged pork barrel scam mastermind Janet Lim-Napoles is asking the Sandiganbayan to subpoena the bank records of principal whistle-blower Benhur Luy, his parents and siblings.
“We only want to see all of his bank records so that the public will know where the PDAF (Priority Development Assistance Fund) went,” Napoles lawyer Stephen David told reporters shortly after yesterday’s bail hearing.
“I’m not saying Benhur profited from PDAF. All I want is to know where he got his money, including at least P25 million in one account,” said David.
He said he had compiled a complete list of the real estate holdings and vehicles of Luy, second cousin of Napoles and finance officer of her firm JLN Corp.
“Benhur, his mother, his father and his siblings have many bank accounts. Benhur claims to be just an ordinary employee of JLN, so where did he get his money? Where did the fund of the NGOs (nongovernment organizations) go?” said David.
Records of whistle-blowers
The lawyer said he also wanted the bank records of the other whistle-blowers Merlina Suñas and Marina Sula.
He said that records of Luy would show that the whistle-blower had amassed wealth in the pork barrel scam under a different operator, as claimed by Napoles.
David was referring to Catherine Mae “Maya” Santos, a legislative aide to Senators Loren Legarda and Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. both of whom had part of their pork funds being channeled to the Napoles NGOs.
“Napoles is claiming that she (Santos) is the real boss of Benhur,” said the lawyer.
Provisional state witness Ruby Tuason also identified Santos, former undersecretary of the National Anti-Poverty Commission during the Arroyo administration, as one of the “middlemen” used by Napoles.
Whistle-blower Sula also tagged Santos a “project coordinator” of Legarda and Marcos during a Senate hearing on the PDAF scam last year.
David wondered why the authorities had not included Santos, who is believed to be still in the Philippines, in the plunder cases filed against several people, including Napoles and Senators Jinggoy Estrada, Bong Revilla and Juan Ponce Enrile.
David insisted that Napoles was dragged into the controversy because of Luy’s exposé. Napoles submitted a tell-all affidavit of her involvement in the pork barrel scam in an attempt to be accepted as a state witness.
“He (Luy) is claiming that everything was done on the say-so of Janet. It’s hard to believe that a person, after benefiting, will just accuse any one just to avoid going to jail and declare himself guiltless,” said David.
Luy no show
Luy and other whistle-blowers did not appear at Thursday’s hearing in which the Commission on Audit (COA) told the antigraft court that it found “irregular” that Revilla would endorse dubious NGOs put up by Napoles as recipients of his multimillion pork barrel funds.
Luy’s nonappearance at the Sandiganbayan hearing was a strategy of the prosecuting panel, according to lawyer Raji Mendoza.
“It was the call of the prosecuting panel not to present him yet. The prosecuting team is laying the premise of their strategy,” Mendoza, private counsel of Luy, said.
COA Assistant Commissioner Susan Garcia was unflinching in her testimony at the Sandiganbayan First Division in the face of Revilla’s main defense line that documents pertaining to his PDAF releases were forged.
Garcia, who oversaw the COA special audit of PDAF releases from 2007 to 2009 that served as the basis of the pork plunder cases, however, admitted that the COA had no document showing that Revilla had received any kickback from Napoles.
The defense gained some points in the bail hearing after it established through the testimony of the prosecution witness, Budget and Management Bureau-G Director IV Carmencita N. Delantar, that neither Revilla nor his coaccused Richard Cambe had exerted any influence in the processing of the special allotment release orders (Saro) that facilitated the transfer of Revilla’s PDAF to implementing agencies.
Delantar said Revilla’s letter to the Department of Budget and Management had only the list of projects with no NGOs specified.
She also testified that Revilla’s Saros were approved as they conformed with the guidelines set under the General Appropriations Act and that these were submitted straight to the implementing agency after approval.
While the prosecution failed to show any trace of Revilla’s fingerprints in the processing of Saros, it was able to show the court several contract agreements signed by Revilla and the respective heads of the Napoles NGOs designated as recipients of the senator’s pork barrel.
Senator endorsed NGOs
Garcia also presented letters of Revilla to the implementing agencies endorsing the NGOs.
“He endorsed the NGO to be a partner in the implementation of the project and he assigned his legislative staff lawyer (Cambe) as his representative,” said Garcia.
“Even if there is no prohibition in the procurement law, this does not mean it is right,” said Garcia.
She testified that the PDAF recipients should have been chosen after a competitive bidding.–With a report from Nancy C. Carvajal
