Ombudsman brings Jocjoc case to SC

Jocelyn “Jocjoc” Bolante

The Office of the Ombudsman has brought the P723-million fertilizer scam case against former Agriculture Undersecretary Jocelyn “Jocjoc” 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,” implored the petition that questioned the Sandiganbayan Second Division’s Nov. 28 resolution, later upheld by a Feb. 6 resolution.

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

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

Lorenzo and Bolante had fled the country in 2005 to avoid testifying before a Senate committee investigating the use of P728 million in fertilizer funds to bankroll the presidential campaign of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in 2004.

The funds went to more than 100 members of the House of Representatives three months before the elections.

After conducting six hearings with the blue ribbon committee in 2006, Sen. Ramon Magsaysay Jr., chair of the agriculture committee, said President Arroyo should be “held accountable” for the mismanagement of the fertilizer fund that amounted to “premeditated, systematic and agricultural theft.”

The Senate blue ribbon committee concluded its investigation in February 2009 and recommended the prosecution of Bolante and nine others.

State prosecutors said the antigraft court exceeded its authority and prematurely dismissed the case when it was ruled insufficient to warrant a trial.

Standard of evidence

The prosecution argued the Sandiganbayan should not have required it 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 occurred right after indictment and before arraignment.

The prosecutors argued that at that point, the Sandiganbayan justices should have only decided if arrest warrants had to be issued for the nonbailable case.

Instead, the antigraft court threw out the charge because of the prosecution’s failure to establish the accused individuals’ role in the scam.

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

It said prima facie evidence was already enough to sustain conviction if the accused failed to contradict it, while probable cause required less than evidence that would justify a conviction.

The 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.

Sufficient enough

Through the same petition, the 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 had given Bolante absolute authority over the funds, that Bolante had ordered the regional directors to change the recipients to his preferred foundations and that Bolante had failed to monitor the implementation of the projects.