Napoles’ plea to post bail opposed
The Office of the Ombudsman opposed the bail plea of pork barrel scam suspect Janet Lim-Napoles and asked the Supreme Court to junk the petition.
Commenting on the pleading in connection with the plunder case against former Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile, the Ombudsman’s special prosecutor claimed to have strong evidence to deny bail.
Napoles filed the plea after the antigraft court twice denied her bail petitions on Oct. 16, 2015, and March 2, 2016, prompting her to appeal to the high court last November.
The special prosecutor argued the SC should affirm the denial of bail because there was no grave abuse of discretion in the ruling.
The prosecutor claimed the testimonies by pork barrel scam whistle-blowers Benhur Luy, Marina Sula, Merlina Suñas and Mary Arlene Baltazar were sufficiently strong evidence against Napoles.
The witnesses testified that the dubious nongovernment organizations that received Enrile’s Priority Development Assistance Fund allocations were controlled by Napoles. However, Napoles’ signature does not appear on the documents.
The prosecutor said there was “no cogent reason” for the Sandiganbayan not to rely on the “unrebutted” testimonies including those by Luy and confessed bagman Ruby Tuason.
It noted that Napoles did not take the witness stand during the 2014-15 bail hearings to disprove or deny the accusations of her former employees.
The prosecution said she “obviously [did not want] to expose herself and her lies in open court.”
“The whole mass of unrebutted testimonial and documentary evidence of the people, which were meticulously and judiciously discussed by the Sandiganbayan in the assailed resolutions, all prove that Napoles and her coaccused performed and contributed necessary acts to carry out the conspiracy and the commission of plunder,” the comment read.
The prosecution also derided Napoles’ attempt to cast doubt on the testimony of witness Ruby Tuason.
Tuason claimed she was an agent who delivered the alleged kickbacks to chief of staff Jessica Lucila Reyes on Enrile’s behalf, but Napoles questioned why Tuason had not asked for an acknowledgement receipt.
On the contrary, the prosecution said Napoles’s proposition, and not Tuason’s, was “the one [which was] incredible and contrary to common human experience.”
“The transaction is illegal. To be sure, accused Reyes, or any high-ranking public official for that matter, would not issue a receipt for receiving a bribe,” stated the comment.
Under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, offenses punishable by up to 40 years’ imprisonment are nonbailable when the evidence of guilt is strong.
Napoles was recently acquitted by the Court of Appeals in the case of Luy’s illegal detention.
