Ombudsman brings Jocjoc’s fertilizer fund scam case to SC

Former agriculture undersecretary Jocelyn “Joc-Joc” Bolante (left) and former agriculture secretary Luis Ramon “Chito” Lorenzo. INQUIRER FILES

The Office of the Ombudsman has brought the P723-million fertilizer fund scam case against former Agriculture Undersecretary Jocelyn Bolante to the Supreme Court after the Sandiganbayan refused to hold a trial for lack of probable cause.

“The Court must give us, the People, a day in court,” said the 31-page petition that questioned the Sandiganbayan Second Division’s Nov. 28 resolution later upheld by a Feb. 6 resolution.

READ: Court denies gov’t appeal on dismissed Bolante case

The petition sought the revival of the case at the Sandiganbayan and the issuance of warrants of arrest against the respondents.

Bolante, along with then-Agriculture Secretary Luis Ramon Lorenzo Jr., Assistant Secretary Ibarra Trinidad Poliquit, and six private individuals, have been charged with plunder. They were accused of pocketing P265.64 million out of the P723-million fund released on Feb. 3, 2004, for the Farm Input Farm Implement Program.

State prosecutors insisted that the antigraft court exceeded its authority and prematurely dismissed the case when it was ruled insufficient to warrant a full-blown trial.

The prosecution argued the Sandiganbayan should not have required them to meet a standard of evidence meant for the trial—not when the case was only at the stage of judicial determination of probable cause, which occurs right after indictment and before arraignment.

Prosecutors argued that at that point, the justices should have only decided if arrest warrants have to be issued for the nonbailable case. Instead, the antigraft court threw out the charge over the prosecution’s failure to establish the accused individuals’ role in the massive scheme.

The petition stated that the Sandiganbayan erred by prematurely applying the threshold of prima facie evidence to the case, which is higher than probable cause.

It explained that prima facie evidence was enough to sustain conviction if the accused fails to contradict it. Probable cause, meanwhile, requires less than evidence that would justify a conviction.

Prosecutors noted that the Sandiganbayan itself acknowledged that it had to resort to a higher standard because otherwise, “it could never arrive at that state of being convinced that the evidence on record does not clearly establish probable cause.” This meant the plunder charge would not have been dismissed.

Through the same petition, prosecutors reiterated that the case was sufficient for now to require the accused to defend themselves in a trial.

The petition insisted that prosecution evidence showed that Lorenzo gave Bolante absolute authority over the funds, Bolante ordered the regional directors to change the recipients to his allegedly preferred foundations, and Bolante failed to monitor the implementation of the projects.

Available testimonies and documents, as well as the cooperation of alleged runner-turned-state witness Jose Barredo Jr., should be enough to establish the existence of probable cause, the prosecution stressed.

“There is a set of facts and circumstances herein that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that the offense charged has been committed by them,” read the petition. CBB/rga