Janet Lim Napoles. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO/RAFFY LERMA
Janet Lim Napoles, the alleged “pork barrel queen,” has asked the Supreme Court that she be allowed temporary liberty while standing trial for plunder before the Sandiganbayan.
In her reply to the government’s comment on her petition, Napoles sought a reversal of the Sandiganbayan’s Oct. 16, 2015, as well as her subsequent appeal on March 2, 2016, both denying her bid to post bail.
She said that government prosecutors “failed to present a strong evidence” against her.
“It appears that the People of the Philippines in their Comment had chosen to merely echo the findings of the Third Division of the Sandiganbayan,” Napoles through her lawyer Stephen David said.
“[They] also tried in vain to justify the findings of the Sandiganbayan that all of the elements of the crime of Plunder was successfully proven, specifically the element that there should be an amassing, accumulation or acquisition of the ill-gotten wealth in the amount of at least P50-milion,” he added.
“The prosecutions’ evidence is built on the questionable credibility of whistleblowers which, if exposed to analysis, shows inconsistencies manifesting the lies on which they are built,” read the pleading filed through Atty. Stephen David.
“Even the testimonies of the whistleblowers themselves failed to prove the alleged conspiracy between petitioner, Senator Enrile and Atty. Gigi Reyes. Benhur Luy admitted that he did not witness any meeting between Senator Enrile and the petitioner. In fact, none of the witnesses testified that they were privy to or have personal knowledge about the supposed agreement which petitioner, Senator Enrile and Atty. Reyes may have in the alleged scheme to carry out the purported PDAF scam,” David said.
Napoles told the high court that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying her bail bid.
Napoles is insisting on her right to post bail after her co-accused, former Senator Juan Ponce Enrile, was allowed to post bail.
Enrile was allowed to post bail with the high court citing “advanced age and poor health.” With Theodore Jason Patrick Ortiz, INQUIRER.net trainee/JE