At age 100, Juan Ponce Enrile has not been much of a public person as he used to be. But on Friday, October 4, he personally appeared before the Sandiganbayan to hear the anti-graft court’s decision on his plunder case in relation to the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or the pork barrel scam.
Although with assistance from some men, the former senator-turned-chief presidential legal counsel walked as he entered the Sandiganbayan Third Division’s courtroom. Inside, he was accompanied by his lawyer and family members.
His co-accused and former chief of staff Jessica Lucila “Gigi” Reyes was seated behind him, wearing a gray dress while holding a rosary. From time to time, Reyes would talk to people beside her. (READ: How the SC ruling on Gigi Reyes’ release changes the game on habeas corpus)
A few more rows down was the so-called pork barrel queen, Janet Lim-Napoles, whose fake non-government organizations were used in the scheme.
Napoles was always bubbly and personable despite facing a pile of cases in relation to PDAF. She greeted reporters on Friday when she arrived outside of the courtroom, heavily guarded by corrections personnel. Inside the courtroom, she was dressed in her orange prisoner uniform partnered with a jacket and a headband.
A few minutes past 9 am, former solicitor general Estelito Mendoza arrived in a wheelchair. He was Enrile’s counsel, who successfully obtained from the Supreme Court bail for his client on humanitarian grounds, even though plunder is supposedly non-bailable. Unlike before, Mendoza already had difficulty speaking.
The clerk of court read the dispositive part of the decision and it was a verdict in favor of Enrile and his co-accused. The anti-graft court’s Special Third Division granted Enrile’s demurrer to evidence, effectively acquitting him. Also cleared were Reyes and Napoles.
A demurrer to evidence is filed when the accused is convinced that the prosecution’s evidence is weak, therefore asking the court to outright dismiss the case. When granted, it has the same effect as an acquittal.
Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang was the lone dissenter (although she concurred in some parts of the decision). Meanwhile, Associate Justice Ronald Moreno penned the decision, with concurrences from Associate Justices Bernelito Fernandez, Geraldine Faith Econg, and Juliet Manalo-San Gaspar.
Under the Sandiganbayan rules, if the regular division’s ruling is not unanimous, a special division has to be created and two more justices are added in the voting. In Enrile’s case, Associate Justices Econg and Manalo-San Gaspar were pulled in as special members of the third division.
“We haven’t done anything. I hope that the people who filed those cases against us will examine their conscience,” Enrile told reporters after the promulgation.
Enrile and Reyes are not yet off the hook as they still face graft cases. Napoles, meanwhile, will remain detained at Correctional Institution for Women in Mandaluyong City, given her conviction in other cases.
Enrile’s acquittal
Enrile and his co-accused were charged with plunder and graft after he was accused of allegedly receiving P172.8 million in kickbacks from his pork barrel through Reyes. In this scheme, lawmakers choose an implementing agency to give their pork barrel to, which then funnels the money through the bogus NGOs of the mastermind Napoles.
The beneficiaries were random names, and the projects did not exist.
The anti-graft court said the prosecutors failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In the ruling, the Sandiganbayan reiterated the elements of plunder which state that:
- the offender is a public officer who acts by her/himself or in connivance with others
- the offender amasses ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt or criminal acts
- the total amount in question is at least P50 million
When the prosecutors indicted Enrile, they emphasized that the then-senator allegedly received the kickbacks from Napoles either by himself or through Reyes.
However, the Sandiganbayan said none of the prosecution witnesses testified “that they handed or transferred money to Enrile himself.” The court also took note of star witness Benhur Luy’s testimony during the cross-examination that he and even Napoles did not personally give money to Enrile.
“Verily, the prosecution failed to prove the allegation that Enrile received a percentage of the cost of any project funded from his PDAF in consideration for the latter’s endorsement to Napoles’ NGOs,” the Sandiganbayan said.
In addition, the anti-graft court said that plunder’s third element (amount in question should be at least P50 million) was not proven in the case. The Sandiganbayan said the prosecutors failed to prove that Enrile and Reyes received this amount, adding that the Daily Disbursement Report (DDR) or the record of Napoles’ transactions only amounted to P46.3 million.
The court also found loopholes in Luy’s testimonies about DDRs. The said document was used by the prosecution to establish Reyes’ supposed kickbacks and commissions in the transactions.
“Luy’s DDRs were not the official records of JLN Corporation, but at most were just his own accounting of day-to-day transactions, and prepared by him for his personal use only,” the Sandiganbayan said. “Notably, Luy could not show any proof that Napoles even knew of the preparation of the said DDRs.”
On Reyes, Napoles
Suspect-turned-witness Ruby Tuason testified that she gave the money, which she said she received from Napoles or Luy, to Reyes. However, Tuason’s testimony lacked details on the alleged deliveries, including the number of deliveries made and the amounts given to Reyes per delivery, according to the Sandiganbayan.
The court added that Tuason’s testimony did not state the specific project, the specific date of the delivery, and the specific place where the kickbacks were allegedly received. Tuason also admitted that she could not recall the amounts she allegedly gave Reyes, the court added.
“We cannot just simply conclude that Reyes received money from Tuason without specifying how much she received from Tuason and for what particular transaction was the kickback/commission for, including the corresponding tranche or installment; and the particular details of each delivery including the time and place,” the court explained, adding that if it were to give weight to Tuason’s testimony, the particular details of transactions should be cleared.
The court said Tuason’s testimony against Reyes was “inconclusive and insufficient” to prove with certainty that Reyes received money in relation to Enrile’s pork barrel.
“In short, the evidence on record failed to satisfy the quantum of evidence required in criminal cases, that is, proof beyond reasonable doubt, to conclude that Reyes received on several occasions the aggregate sum of PHP46,387,500.00 from Tuason as kickbacks or commissions,” the Sandiganbayan said.
As for Napoles, the court said the evidence failed to prove that the so-called pork barrel queen gave kickbacks or commissions to Enrile or Reyes.
“Since the prosecution was unable to prove the receipt of money as alleged in the Information by herein public officers Enrile and Reyes (the alleged main plunderers), then Napoles could not be found liable for the offense charged since the basis of her indictment was conspiracy with the said public officers,” the Sandiganbayan added.
The lone dissenter
In her opinion, the Sandiganbayan presiding justice said she concurred with the court’s acquittal of the three in plunder.
However, Cabotaje-Tang dissented on the part that cleared Reyes and Napoles of criminal conviction. Although the presiding justice believes that plunder was not committed, she said Reyes and Napoles should still be held accountable.
Cabotaje-Tang wanted to apply the variance doctrine in the case, which means that a person may be convicted of a lesser crime even though it was not the original charge filed against him or her.
“Since criminal acts may be alleged in an Information as the means through which the crime of Plunder is committed, necessarily, the variance doctrine may be applied in instances when the crime of Plunder itself is not proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt but the lesser ‘included’ offenses are,” Cabotaje-Tang said.
Cabotaje-Tang stated that Reyes should be convicted of five counts of direct bribery, while Napoles for five counts of corruption of public officials.
The presiding justice said Luy’s DDRs specifically stated that money was disbursed in connection with the pork barrel. According to her, this established the link, together with other evidence, between Napoles and Reyes.
“In the same vein, while accused Reyes may not be found guilty of the crime of Plunder as the prosecution failed to establish the presence of the third element beyond reasonable doubt, the evidence on record indubitably show that she received the amount of PhP46,387,500.00 from accused Napoles by committing acts in furtherance of accused Napoles’ scheme,” the presiding justice said.
She also added that based on evidence, the prosecutors were able to prove that Napoles committed criminal acts to implement an illegal scheme to divert the pork barrel for her personal gain.
The trend continues
Enrile’s acquittal made the government’s track record a 0-3 loss in the biggest pork barrel scam cases.
Prior to Enrile, his fellow big fish, Senators Bong Revilla and Jinggoy Estrada, had already been acquitted by the anti-graft court. The three were the biggest personalities indicted in the probe initiated under former president Noynoy Aquino’s time.
Enrile’s win in his plunder case also bears similarities to the acquittals of Revilla and Estrada.
Revilla was cleared in his plunder case in 2018 by his filing of a demurrer to evidence. Although Estrada was acquitted of plunder in January, he was convicted by the court of direct and indirect bribery. But later on, the Sandiganbayan flipped its decision, saying that there was no proof of Estrada’s actual receipt of the bribe.
Another trend in high-profile pork barrel cases is the so-called big fish being cleared, while the smaller personalities get convicted.
Although Napoles was acquitted in the Enrile case, she was convicted in both the Revilla and Estrada cases.
Revilla’s former staff Richard Cambe was also found guilty of plunder alongside Napoles and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua or imprisonment of at least 20 years and one day up to at most 40 years, while Revilla is cleared. Cambe died inside the New Bilibid Prison in 2021.
Of the three, only Enrile and Estrada have pending graft charges. The trial is still ongoing, but the prior verdicts in the pork barrel cases have already shown their capacities to defend themselves amid the corruption allegations thrown at them. – Rappler.com
