The Supreme Court (SC) has upheld the ruling issued by the Sandiganbayan allowing former Masbate third district representative Rizalina Seachon-Lanete and businesswoman Janet Lim Napoles to post bail in the plunder cases filed against them in connection with the Priority Development Assistance (PDAF) or pork barrel fund scam.
In a 22-page resolution, the SC denied the petition filed by the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) of the Ombudsman seeking the reversal of the resolutions dated April 12, 2016 and February 13, 2017 issued by the Sandiganbayan’s Fourth Division which granted the applications for bail of Lanete and Napoles.
The high tribunal held that the anti-graft court did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in allowing Lanete and Napoles to post bail considering that the OSP failed to establish the respondents’ guilt as the threshold of P50 million required in plunder case was not reached.
In its resolutions, Sandiganbayan also held that the OSP failed to provide proof of any personal dealings between Napoles and Lanete.
The anti-graft court noted that no evidence was presented by the OSP to show that Lanete and Napoles met to discuss the PDAF scheme and that the former personally received any kickbacks from the latter.
In its petition filed before the SC assailing the grant of bail to Lanete and Napoles, the OSP argued that the anti-graft court gravely abused its discretion when it misappreciated the facts and evidence showing the respondents’ guilt is strong.
The OSP also argued that the Sandiganbanyan committed grave abuse of discretion when it measured the prosecution’s evidence against legal standards that “are not applicable to bail proceedings in particular, and to corruption in general.”
In ruling against the petitioner, the SC stressed that the OSP, for the purpose of the bail hearings, failed to present evidence to show that the threshold amount of P50 million was reached.
“Failure to reach the said amount is fatal because it is a crucial element in the crime of Plunder. Any proof that there was an accumulation of ill-gotten wealth, but in an amount less than P50,000,000.00, means that the accused committed a crime other than the crime of Plunder,” the SC stressed.
“Verily, the Court concludes that the OSP failed to prove that there exists evident guilt or a great presumption of guilt that would warrant the denial of Napoles and Lanete’s right to bail,” it added.
Based on the complaint filed before the Sandiganbayan, the OSP claimed that Lanete, Napoles, and their co-accused committed plunder and amassed ill-gotten wealth in the amount of at least P64.4 million or 60 percent of the total amount of P107. 34 million received by Napoles’ NGOs, representing the former solon’s kickback from his PDAF from 2007 to 2010.
But the Sandiganbayan excluded certain daily disbursement records (DDRs) amounting to P21.6 million from the computation of the alleged ill-gotten wealth amassed by the respondents because they do not pertain to Lanete’s 2007 to 2010 PDAF allocation.
“The Court concurs that said items must be excluded from the computation of the supposed amassed ill-gotten wealth for being irrelevant to this case,” the resolution read.
The SC stressed that its ruling is only limited on the existence of grave abuse of discretion in relation to the bail hearings conducted by the Sandiganbayan and that the OSP may still present evidence to support its plunder case against Lanete and Napoles.
“This ruling is without prejudice to the OSP’s right to present additional evidence during the trial proper of this case to prove beyond reasonable doubt the existence of all the elements of the crime of plunder,” the SC stressed.
