Ombudsman: Court prematurely junked fertilizer scam case vs Bolante

Former Agriculture Undersecretary Jocelyn Joc-joc Bolante (INQUIRER FILE PHOTO)

MANILA — State prosecutors have appealed against the Sandiganbayan Special Second Division’s dismissal of the plunder case against former agriculture undersecretary Jocelyn Bolante and others over the P723-million fertilizer fund scam.

In a 14-page motion for reconsideration, the Ombudsman’s Office of the Special Prosecutor questioned the court’s authority to issue the Nov. 28 minute resolution that threw out the charge for lack of probable cause for a trial.

To recall, the court said the prosecution failed to show how Bolante and the other accused amassed ill-gotten wealth, despite first giving it a chance to submit more evidence and shore up the case in August 2014.

Prosecutors argued that when the anti-graft court junked the plunder case, it went beyond its authority to determine the existence of probable cause only for the purpose of issuing the warrants of arrest.

The appeal stressed that the judge could only determines probable cause for the arrest warrant, because “the preliminary investigation proper—whether or not there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged…— is the function of the Prosecutor.”

Prosecutors also argued that only the threshold of probable cause would be needed at this stage to head to trial. Yet, the court applied the higher threshold of “either prima facie evidence, or the quantum of evidence that is needed to hold an accused accountable or liable.”

“With all due respect, the Sandiganbayan is not allowed to do [this] at this stage of the proceeding,” the motion read.

At this early stage, the prosecution stressed that the alleged scheme allowing the “raid of the public treasury” was reason enough to head to trial.

It maintained that the case was supported by several documents and investigative findings from the Department of Agriculture, the Commission on Audit, and the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee.

Prosecutors took exception to the court’s pronouncement that they failed to actually show the allegedly plundered funds went to Bolante and the other accused.

“It becomes unnecessary to present proof at this early stage that such public fund found its way to the personal account of the accused, as what the Honorable Court wanted the prosecution to prove,” the motion read.

Prosecutors implored the court not to “close its eyes to the glaring badges of fraud and irregularities committed in the release and utilization of multi-million fertilizer fund.”

“To let the accused run scot-free after all the accumulation of evidence and conduct of numerous deliberations will make an injustice to our nation,” the motion read.

The said scheme was supposedly characterized by former Agriculture Secretary Luis Ramon Lorenzo’s order that delegated the supervision of the Farm Input and Farm Implement Program (FIFIP) to Bolante “without specific guidelines, standards and limitations.”

Bolante and his associates allegedly diverted some of the funds through anomalous fertilizer sales and the padding of the list of beneficiaries.

Other individuals cleared of charges were DA Assistant Secretary Ibarra Trinidad C. Poliquit, and private defendants Jaime Paule, Marilyn Araos, Joselito Flordeliza, Marites Aytona, Jose Barredo and Leonicia Marco-Llarena.  SFM/rga