The Sandiganbayan has turned down a motion by Janet Lim Napoles contesting the admission of evidence in her Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) scam cases involving former Oriental Mindoro representative Rodolfo Valencia.
A resolution adopted on Nov. 15, 2022 by the Sandiganbayan’s 7th Division, the court admitted documents questioned by Napoles as purportedly irrelevant and failed to prove the purposes for which they were offered, among other reasons.
The anti-graft court stressed that admissibility of evidence should not be confused with its probative value.
“If a document offered for a purpose is admitted, it only means that the document is admissible under the rules, it does not mean that it has proven what it had been offered to prove,” the court said in the resolution penned by 7th Division chairperson Ma. Theresa Dolores Gomez-Estoesta, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Zaldy Trespeses and Georgina Hidalgo.
The charges against Napoles, the so-called pork barrel scam queen, and Valencia were connected to the alleged anomalous use of the former lawmaker’s P7-million PDAF from 2007 to 2009.
The documents admitted by the court included printouts of whistleblower Benhur Luy’s hard drive containing cash and check daily disbursement reports he made as a former officer of Napoles’ JLN Corporation.
The court noted that the printouts were subjected to forensic examination, contrary to Napoles’ objection that the evidence violated the original document rule.
The court emphasized that under the rules on electronic evidence, a document should be regarded as the equivalent of an original document under the best evidence rule it is a printout or output readable is by sight or other means.
The court said the documents are admitted as they have been duly authenticated by Luy.
“These documents were offered to prove that illegal transactions of accused Napoles through various NGOs (non-government organizations) were recorded and documented by her finance officer Luy, they were not offered in lieu of the signed DDRs and are thus not secondary evidence thereof,” the court said.
The court also admitted documents from the Anti-Money Laundering Council, the Department of Budget and Management, and the Social Security System, as well as special audit reports of the Commission on Audit.
The court reminded all parties to the case of the presentation of evidence for the accused on Jan. 17, 2023.
