DATELINE PHILIPPINES

Napoles cleared in one pork barrel case but convicted in another

by KRIXIA SUBINGSUBING Inquirer.net

MANILA — The Sandiganbayan cleared businesswoman Janet LimNapoles of 16 counts of graft in connection with the alleged anomalous use of Sen. Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr.’s pork barrel fund, but convicted her on separate charges for the misuse of a former Davao del Sur lawmaker’s discretionary fund.

The decisions, promulgated separately by the anti-graft court’s first and second divisions, were made public at the same time on Monday, May 22. Napoles is presently serving multiple sentences at the Correctional Institution for Women from two earlier convictions in relation to the pork barrel scam, including life imprisonment imposed by the Sandiganbayan in 2018 for plunder.

In the 223-page decision in the Revilla case, Napoles was found innocent after state prosecutors failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt in all 16 charges of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act

No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

The case accused Revilla of allocating P224 million from his Priority Development Assistance Fund to bogus nongovernment organizations (NGOs) owned by Napoles. He was one of many lawmakers who reportedly allotted their discretionary funds to ghost projects in exchange for kickbacks.

The anomaly came to light when Napoles’ cousin and bagman, Benhur Luy, blew the lid on the scam after he was supposedly detained by the businesswoman. The Inquirer broke the story in 2013, prompting several investigations that led to the indictment of then Senators Juan Ponce Enrile, Jinggoy Estrada, and Revilla for plunder and multiple counts of graft.

In clearing Napoles, the First Division mainly argued that the graft charges were the same predicate acts of plunder, for which Napoles and Revilla’s chief of staff, Richard Cambe, had been convicted in 2018. Both were raffled off to the First Division, which acquitted Revilla of all charges in 2021.

Same accusations

“The acts imputed to the accused charged in the two sets of cases are the same,” according to the decision written by Associate Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang. “Moreover, the testimonial and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution were essentially the same in the trial of both cases.”

Citing jurisprudence, the court said it was clear that the legislative intent in passing the anti-plunder law was “to address the procedural nightmare of filing separate charges for the different predicate acts.”

“In other words, the prosecution can incorporate all the predicate acts in one charge of plunder instead of preparing a multitude of information and proving all of them in court,” it noted. “Since the predicate acts were already used as basis [for] the crime of plunder, then the accused could no longer be charged separately for violation of the antigraft law.”

It did note that the prosecution was able to substantiate evidence that Cambe and Napoles received kickbacks in  PAGE 7