The Sandiganbayan has decided to proceed with the trial of the plunder case filed against former Immigration Deputy Commissioner Al Argosino after ruling that the complaint filed by the Ombudsman against the former official “was able to state a series of overt acts” required for a full-blown trial.
Argosino will thus remain in detention.
The former BI official is facing trial in connection with the alleged P50-million payoff from gaming tycoon Jack Lam in exchange for the release of more than one thousand Chinese casino workers caught working without permits at the Fontana Resort Hotel in Clark Field, Pampanga, in 2016.
Argosino earlier questioned the validity of the charge sheet, claiming it only alleged “one criminal act of receiving and collecting a sum of money,” and not a “series” as required by Republic Act 7080.
The anti-graft court ruled however that Argosino and his co-accused, deputy commissioner Michael Robles, were accused of receiving the P50-million payoff in two installments.
“Each instance of receiving or collecting a sum of money constitutes a separate act. Hence, the Information in the case at bar alleges the commission of acts in series,” read the resolution penned by Associate Justice Sarah Jane T. Fernandez.
Argosino claimed that there was only one act because he was also indicted only for one count of direct bribery.
The Sandiganbayan ruling, however, said the series of acts did not need to be criminal in nature, because the plunder law only required that the official be accused of committing a series of “overt or criminal acts.”
Argosino also argued that the case did not meet the P50-million threshold for the crime of plunder because he and Robles only had custody of P29.999 million.
Records of the case indicate that P18 million of the amount went to BI intelligence chief Charles Calima—whom the Ombudsman cleared for merely conducting counterintelligence operations on Argosino and Robles—and P2 million went to alleged middleman Wenceslao Sombero Jr., while P1,000 had gone missing.
Argosino also claimed he and Robles held the money in an effort to gather evidence against Lam and their turnover of the money to the Department of Justice in December 2016 negated their intention to acquire ill-gotten wealth.
However, the court found these arguments to be matters of defense that were best threshed out in a full-blown trial.
Associate Justices Karl B. Miranda and Zaldy V. Trespeses concurred in the resolution.