Government bucks dismissal of raps vs Estrada aide

The plunder charge against Yolanda Ricaforte and the warrant issued for her arrest should not be set aside, government prosecutors told the Sandiganbayan Special Division last Friday as they opposed the plea of the accused for a preliminary investigation of the case and the quashing of the warrant.

Ricaforte is a coaccused in the plunder case of former President Joseph Estrada and is alleged to have acted as the auditor of the illegal gambling payoffs to Estrada. She left the country at the height of the people’s uprising that ended with Estrada’s ouster from office in 2001.

Last month, Ricaforte asked the Sandiganbayan Special Division to order the Office of the Ombudsman to conduct a preliminary investigation into her case and to withdraw her arrest warrant, arguing that she had been denied due process and the charge sheet against her was defective.

But in its comment on Ricaforte’s motion, the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) said a valid preliminary investigation was conducted on the complaint against her before the plunder case was filed in court.

It disputed her contention that she had left the country by the time the Office of the Ombudsman had begun hearings on the supplemental complaint in which she was named a respondent.

Counteraffidavit not responsive

Ricaforte had said the counteraffidavit she submitted on Jan. 21, 2001, was not responsive to the charges since the order to respond to the supplemental complaint was dated Feb. 2, 2001.

But according to the OSP, Ricaforte herself admitted in a motion filed in another related case that she had been served a copy of the supplemental complaint, as this was attached to the February 2 order.

“With this admission, the claims of accused Ricaforte that her counteraffidavit contains only a general denial and is not responsive to the supplemental complaint, necessarily dwindle into nothingness,” it said.

The OSP added that Ricaforte should have complied with the February 2 order unless she considered her earlier counteraffidavit as sufficient to deny the allegations in the supplemental complaint.

It also said that in determining whether there was a preliminary investigation held, it was immaterial whether Ricaforte left the country before the hearings on the complaint had started.

It said she was duly notified and given copies of the complaints against her, and was given a chance to contest them.

As for Ricaforte’s argument that she was not given a copy of the April 4, 2001, resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman ordering the filing of charges against her, the OSP said the copy was sent to her last known address in Quezon City.

Arrest warrant valid

It further said that the warrant for her arrest was valid, and that the court had found probable cause to issue it.

The OSP contested as well Ricaforte’s argument that the charge sheet against her had no allegation of criminal content.

It said the same issue had been addressed in the Supreme Court ruling upholding the plunder case against Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada, another coaccused.

The high court had ruled, among other things, that the gravamen (material part) of the conspiracy charge was that each of the accused had agreed to participate directly or indirectly in the amassing and acquisition of ill-gotten wealth by former President Estrada.

But in her reply to the OSP, Ricaforte insisted that she was denied substantive due process because the amended charge sheet against her was void for being vague and failing to inform her of the charges against her.