The Office of the Ombudsman has petitioned the Sandiganbayan to reverse the latter’s dismissal of the criminal cases against four Department of Budget and Management officials in connection with the alleged diversion of P20.8 million of former Cagayan de Oro Rep. Constantino Jaraula’s pork barrel.
In a motion for reconsideration, the Ombudsman, through the Office of the Special Prosecutor, told the antigraft court’s First Division that it had presented enough evidence to pursue the graft and malversation charges against Budget Undersecretary Mario Relampagos and three members of his staff—Lalaine Paule, Marilou Bare and Rosario Nuñez.
Aside from his alleged role in the P10-billion pork barrel scam involving lawmakers, Relampagos had been implicated in a syndicate that allegedly produced spurious special allotment release orders (Saro) from the DBM.
Dozens of charges
He and his three subordinates are facing dozens of charges for graft, malversation and direct bribery in the Sandiganbayan stemming from the P10-billion scam allegedly masterminded by Janet Lim-Napoles.
The Ombudsman prosecutors stressed that the indictment of Relampagos et al. was not based solely on the Saro for Jaraulla’s pork barrel allotment which the court said was signed by then Budget Secretary Rolando Andaya and not Relampagos.
A Saro is one of the DBM documents required for the release of government funds, including the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or the pork barrel of lawmakers.
The government lawyers said the filing of charges against the DBM officials was also supported by the testimony of primary whistle-blower Benhur Luy and the special audit conducted by the Commission on Audit on the PDAF released to legislators.
They said Relampagos and his subordinates “expedited the preparation and release of the Saros covering the PDAF projects on… the ministrations of accused Janet Napoles and her staff.”
The prosecution also noted that National Budget Circular 476 clearly states that the issuance of Saros and national cash allotments was a “procedural requirement (which) does not vest solely on (Andaya), but on the members of his staff, especially accused Relampagos, who is head for operations, and his staff Paule, Nunez and Bare.”
Acts in preparation
“The act of processing the release of Saros and NCAs by the DBM through the accused Relampagos, Paule, Nunez and Bare includes not only the signing of the Saro, but all acts in its preparation,” the prosecution said in its motion.
“In fact, through them, the Saros were hastily released without having complied with the preliminary requirements mandated by NBC 476,” it said.
The Ombudsman prosecutors said the DBM officials “disregarded the requirements and facilitated the release of accused Jaraulla’s PDAF during the years 2006 to 2007 without the required endorsement from the (implementing agencies).”
In its May 13 decision, the court ordered the dismissal of one count of graft and one count of malversation against Relampagos et al. for lack of probable cause.
“Considering that the basis for the indictment of the… accused in the two criminal cases was their participation in the preparation and issuance of the said Saro, the court therefore rules that there is no sufficient ground to find the existence of probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest against (them).”