Enrile cleared of plunder in P173 million pork scam case

WEAK EVIDENCE In dismissing the case against former Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile, the antigraft court noted that none of the prosecution witnesses testified that they handed the alleged pork barrel kickbacks directly to the accused. —KATHLEEN DE VILLA

The Sandiganbayan on Friday threw out the P172.8-million plunder case against Juan Ponce Enrile, saying the prosecution submitted insufficient evidence and failed to show that the kickbacks he allegedly received from his pork barrel when he was a senator reached the minimum P50-million threshold for the crime.

“I knew all along that I’ll be acquitted because I haven’t done anything,” said the 100-year-old politician who now serves as legal counsel for President Marcos after a hearing where the court announced his exoneration.

The antigraft court also acquitted his former chief of staff Jessica Lucila “Gigi” Reyes and businesswoman Janet Lim-Napoles, the alleged mastermind of the scam to siphon off P10 billion from the now-defunct Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

The PDAF scandal first came to light in 2013 after the Inquirer exposed the misuse of the fund allocations to lawmakers in ghost projects for over 10 years. Under the scheme, the funds were taken from the legislators’ pork barrels and funneled to bogus nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) or foundations run by Napoles.

Enrile, Reyes and Napoles were charged in 2014 with plunder for allegedly amassing P172.8 million in kickbacks or commissions from the former Senate president’s pork barrel from 2004 to 2010.

The prosecution’s “failure to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt” had moved the antigraft court to grant the separate demurrers to evidence filed by Enrile and Napoles.

Project cost ‘percentage’

A demurrer is sought by respondents who believe that the evidence presented against them in court is weak. Granting this motion is equivalent to an acquittal.

The Sandiganbayan allowed Enrile to file his demurrer in September last year. The court, however, did not grant Reyes’ own motion during the same month, but eventually acquitted her in its decision.

In its ruling, the five-member Third Division of the Sandiganbayan said that the indictment against Enrile alleged that he or Reyes “repeatedly received” kickbacks or commissions from Napoles or her representatives “in the form of a percentage” of the cost of the projects to be funded from his PDAF.

“However, none of the prosecution witnesses testified that they handed or transferred money to Enrile himself,” the court said.

One of the prosecution witnesses, Ruby Tuason, a former social secretary for ex-President Joseph Estrada, “confirmed” that she did not give any money to Enrile, it added.

The court took note of the letters signed by Enrile requesting for fund releases in 2006, 2007 and 2010, but it also cited the testimony of an officer of the Senate’s legislative budget office that this was “usual procedure.”

‘Evil in itself’

It said that Enrile’s “criminal intention” should be clearly established, considering that plunder was “mala ni se (evil in itself).

“It must be shown clearly and convincingly that in making the letter-requests, Enrile intended to receive kickbacks or commissions in exchange for his endorsement of Napoles’ NGOs,” the court said.

“If the NGOs turned out to be spurious, then it should have been established that Enrile either participated in the faking of these NGOs, or knew at the time that he was making the letter-request that the NGOs were bogus,” it pointed out.

The prosecution’s evidence, it added, was “clearly wanting on these points.”

It said that of 24 entries amounting to P172.8 million in alleged kickbacks in a “summary of rebates” recorded by scam whistleblower Benhur Luy, only 10 were received by Tuason.

‘Speculative, baseless’

Only half of that, or five transactions, indicated in daily disbursement reports (DDRs), were supposedly disbursed to “Enrile,” “JPE” and a certain “Tanda” totaling P46.39 million. This amount is below the P50-million threshold for the crime of plunder under Republic Act No. 7080.

The deliveries by Tuason to Reyes, supposedly intended for Enrile, were also never detailed, the court stressed.

It dismissed as “speculative and baseless” the accusation that Reyes “could not have consummated the scheme without (Enrile’s) knowing and indispensable cooperation through his covert acts.”

“It is clear that Tuason’s testimony was inconclusive and insufficient to prove with moral certainty that Reyes received monies forming part of Enrile’s PDAF or that the same passed her hand,” the antigraft court said.

The court also raised doubts about the legitimacy of the DDRs retrieved from the external drive of Luy, who served as Napoles’ financial officer.

“How can we treat these unsigned DDRs as credible pieces of evidence when they were printed only in 2013, but they allegedly showed transactions that happened in 2004 to 2010 or after almost 10 years reckoned from 2004?” the court said.

Receipt unproven

Regarding Napoles’ liability, the Sandiganbayan said that Luy lacked evidence to establish that the businesswoman had gotten a slice of Enrile’s pork barrel.

“Since the prosecution was unable to prove the receipt of money … by herein public officers Enrile and Reyes (the alleged main plunderers), then Napoles could not be found liable for the offense charged since the basis of her indictment was conspiracy with the said public officers,” the court ruled.

Enrile’s lead defense counsel, the 94-year-old lawyer Estelito Mendoza, said “this is a vindication for all of us.” Unlike Enrile, who could still stand on his own with some assistance, Mendoza was wheelchair-bound.

Longest-serving

“I hope the people who filed those cases against us will examine their conscience,” Enrile said in a weak voice after the Sandiganbayan handed down its ruling.

Enrile and Mendoza were among the longest-serving members of the Cabinet of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos Sr. Enrile served as defense secretary before breaking away from the dictator in 1986 while Mendoza remained loyal to Marcos as his solicitor general.

Napoles, who hesitated speaking with the media before she stepped outside the courtroom, only said: “God is good!” She will remain at the Correctional Institute for Women for her convictions on other PDAF-related charges.

Reyes refused to answer questions from reporters and went straight to the elevator in a rush to leave the courthouse. Enrile’s longtime aide was seen praying with a rosary just before the ruling was read by lawyer Dennis Pulma, the division’s Executive Clerk of Court.

The Sandiganbayan issued arrest warrants against two other coaccused in the plunder case—Ronald Lim, Napoles’ nephew, and John Raymund de Asis, her driver-bodyguard. Both remain in hiding.

‘Variance rule’

The 85-page decision was authored by Associate Justice Ronald Moreno, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Bernelito Fernandez, Geraldine Econg and Juliet Manalo-San Gaspar.

Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang, a member of the Fifth Division, gave a dissenting and concurring opinion, in which she voted to convict Reyes of five counts of direct bribery based on the “variance” rule.

Under the Rules of Court on Criminal Procedure, the variance doctrine allows an accused to be convicted of a different and lesser crime.

Cabotaje-Tang, however, agreed that Reyes, along with Enrile and Napoles, be cleared of plunder due to lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Not yet over

Enrile, Reyes and Napoles are not completely off the hook legally as they are still facing 15 counts of graft along with more than 40 other respondents for allegedly diverting the P172.8-million public fund.

In April, Enrile was allowed by the Sandiganbayan to file a motion for the outright dismissal of his graft case. His lawyer Jecko Bello, however, chose to file a demurrer to evidence without leave of court.

This motion means that he wants to skip the presentation of witnesses and proceed with the resolution of his case on grounds that the prosecution’s evidence against him is insufficient.

If the court grants Enrile’s demurrer to evidence, he would be acquitted again. But if it is thrown out, the trial hearings will proceed.

Bail granted due to age

After his arrest in 2014, Enrile was detained at the Philippine National Police General Hospital. In August 2015, the Supreme Court granted him bail, citing his advanced age and poor health.

Two other senators—Jinggoy Estrada and Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr.—were also arrested and detained in 2014 on plunder charges.

Both Revilla and Estrada were acquitted of plunder, but Estrada was convicted of the less serious offenses of direct and indirect bribery in January, a decision the Sandiganbayan reversed in August.

Revilla was also accused of 16 counts of graft for allegedly amassing P224.5 million in kickbacks. He was acquitted in July 2021. —WITH A REPORT FROM INQUIRER RESEARCH INQ