The Sandiganbayan 4th Division should reconsider its decision to grant bail to Masbate Governor Rizalina Seachon-Lanete because there is sufficient evidence to convict her. The Office of the Special Prosecutor stands firm that Governor Lanete should be sent back to her detention cell.
In Benhur Luy’s Daily Disbursement Records, the list of kickbacks or “rebates” paid to Lanete reached a total of ₱76,078,750.00.
However, the Sandiganbayan excluded 32 items totalling ₱34,878,850 from the list, thereby reducing the amount to less than ₱50million, the minimum needed to charge Lanete with plunder, a non-bailable crime. Bail was granted by the Sandiganbayan 4th Division on April 12, 2016.
In the 77-page resolution to grant bail written by the recently appointed Justice Geraldine Faith Econg, the court held that 19 of these items amounting to ₱14,413,750.00 were not marked and identified by the prosecution, therefore “it can only be surmised that the prosecution did not intend to include them in its evidence.”
The Office of the Special Prosecutor, however, pointed out in a motion for reconsideration filed on Thursday that the 19 items did not have to be “submarked” because they are constituent parts of already marked documents that the court had admitted in evidence. Submarking to emphasize an item in an already marked document may be done, but it is up to the proponent’s discretion.
Two more exclusions—four items amounting to ₱7,300,000.00 and 10 items amounting to ₱14,165,000.00—were identified by the prosecutors as either “rebates” paid to Lanete earlier than her 2007 to 2010 PDAF or in advance of the release of her PDAF allocation. Documents of the transactions are part of submitted evidence on record.
2,388 pages of trans, 5,614 exhibits
The court is also being requested to reconsider several of its findings that appear contrary to submitted evidence. This would entail the careful examination of the records that include trans of stenographic notes numbering 2,388 pages, taken during 21 dates of hearings – beginning on 06 May 2015 and concluding on 23 November 2015, and 5,614 exhibits inclusive of derivatives or sub-markings.
According to the prosecution, the examination is necessary in order to properly evaluate the strength of evidence presented to establish the guilt of accused Lanete and Napoles for plunder.
Co-conspirators to Plunder
On the court’s contention that Lanete’s signature may have been forged because “accused Lanete questioned the genuineness and authenticity of the signature above her name…” the prosecution reiterates that Lanete, who was given the opportunity to present countervailing proof against the prosecution’s witnesses, “never raised the issue of the authenticity of her signature and has not denied her signatures in the documents”.
On the court’s conclusion that the evidence of guilt of Lanete and Janet Lim-Napoles is not strong because “accused Napoles and accused Lanete have never met” and that “there was never an instance when money was handed over personally to Lanete,” the prosecution finds it unreasonable to expect public officials to consort with their co-conspirators in public and risk revealing evidence of illegal activity.
Meanwhile, testimonies from local officials of supposedly beneficiary districts, findings of the Commission on Audit, and results of the on-site verification conducted by the Ombudsman’s Field Investigation Office collectively confirm that projects funded by Lanete’s PDAF and supposedly implemented by NGOs owned by accused Napoles are “ghosts” or non-existent. ###