State prosecutors withdraw bid to amend plunder raps vs Enrile

By: Dona Z. Pazzibugan - 10 years ago

Senator Juan Ponce Enrile. FILE PHOTO

MANILA, Philippines – Having twice failed to revise the plunder complaint they filed against two senators, government prosecutors dropped their move to amend the plunder charges against Senator Juan Ponce Enrile.

Deputy Special Prosecutor John Turalba, who heads the three teams prosecuting the pork barrel scam cases, told the Sandiganbayan 3rd Division Monday that they were withdrawing their motion to amend the plunder information against Enrile, his former chief of staff Jessica “Gigi” Reyes, businesswoman Janet Lim-Napoles, her nephew Ronald John Lim and her driver John Raymund De Asis.

The prosecutors said they changed their mind after considering the “issues” that rose when they tried to amend the plunder information against Senators Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada and Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr.

They also cited possible delays that could result should they persist in amending the information.

Within the day, the Sandiganbayan 3rd Division allowed the prosecution panel to withdraw its motion to amend the crucial plunder information.

The amended information would have made Enrile, and not Napoles, as the one who chiefly orchestrated and benefited from the scam and who amassed P172 million from misappropriating pork barrel funds to anomalous projects.

The amended information would have also removed the element of “conspiracy” among the accused by alleging that Napoles was a mere collaborator in the scam.

Last Thursday, the anti-graft court’s 1st Division denied the prosecutors’ petition to amend the plunder information against Revilla and four co-accused, since this would put in question the court’s basis for finding probable cause to order their arrest for allegedly illegally amassing P224 million.

On Friday, the prosecutors themselves withdrew the amended information against Estrada after the Sandiganbayan 5th Division warned they would release the senator and three co-accused if the basis for their arrest were revised.

Unlike in Revilla and Estrada’s cases, however, the court’s 3rd Division has not yet decided whether there is probable cause to order Enrile’s arrest based on the original plunder information.

In a motion filed Monday morning, the prosecution panel headed by Turalba admitted their court setbacks gave them pause.

“Events that unfolded in relation to similar motions filed by the prosecution and heard before the 1st and 5th divisions of the court have given (the prosecution panel) pause,” the panel said.

“Issues rose during (the) hearings and the process it could have entailed for all involved to file their respective pleadings became a consideration,” it added.

While insisting that they were not making substantial changes to the plunder charges, the prosecutors said they would drop the amendment to avoid “serious delays imminent from an exchange of pleadings.”

The panel maintained “that the crime of plunder was committed by the accused and the definitive acts constituting conspiracy among all of them were properly alleged.”

The prosecution panel would have wanted to rephrase the plunder information “to emphasize that the senator was the one who amassed, accumulated and acquired ill-gotten wealth in connivance or in conspiracy with his co-accused public officer and private individuals.”

They had also wanted to delete the phrase “enabling Napoles to misappropriate the PDAF (Priority Development and Assistance Fund) proceeds for her personal gain.”

Then they would have wanted to include the phrase that the senator enriched himself through kickbacks and commissions “by exerting undue pressure on the implementing agencies to favorably act on his endorsement of the NGOs of Napoles to ensure that his PDAF be in the possession and control of Napoles and her cohorts.”