Luy testimony inadmissible, defense lawyers argue

MANILA, Philippines – State witness Benhur Luy’s testimony was met with resistance on the first day he appeared before the anti-graft court Sandiganbayan for the pork barrel scam cases.

The whistleblower testified Thursday, July 24, at the bail hearing of opposition Senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr, who is detained at Camp Crame and accused of plundering millions in government funds and channeling money to fake non-governmental organizations (NGOs). 

Lawyers of Revilla, his aide Richard Cambe, and alleged scam mastermind Janet Lim Napoles all objected to the testimony of Luy and said it was inadmissible in court. 

Stephen David, legal counsel for Napoles, said a co-conspirator in the scam like Luy cannot just name others who are allegedly likewise involved. Independent evidence showing that the conspiracy to plunder the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) of lawmakers exists has to be presented first, he said.

If Luy’s testimony is admitted, he said this would mean a person who conspired with others to commit a crime can simply apply as state witness and instead implicate whoever he wishes to avoid punishment.

In a separate interview, Cambe’s lawyer Mike Ancheta likewise said the prosecution should first present evidence proving that the conspiracy to plunder government funds occurred before Luy’s testimony could be admitted. 

Prior to Luy’s testimony, executives from the Commission on Audit (COA) and the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) testified that Revilla repeatedly endorsed NGOs as recipients of his PDAF. 

Luy testified that these same NGOs were owned and controlled by Napoles; that documents were falsified for these NGOs to appear legitimate; and that funds were coursed through these NGOs in exchange for kickbacks given to Revilla and his aide Cambe.

Prosecution counters

But the prosecution argued that the defense lawyers are misguided in their claim of inadmissibility.

A lawyer from the prosecution and one of the country’s veteran litigators who refused to be named explained that it is Luy who has personal knowledge that Napoles committed the crime of plunder. 

His personal knowledge of the alleged scam makes his testimony admissible, the lawyer said. He added that there is documentary evidence to prove that the modus operandi existed.

Another lawyer who serves as part of the prosecution’s research team said it is precisely Luy’s testimony that will show that Napoles had the intention of committing illegal acts and how the conspiracy developed. 

As to the participation of Revilla in the scam, the two lawyers separately told Rappler that further evidence will show Revilla gained from the siphoning of his PDAF supposedly meant for projects beneficial to communities.

“Kaya may karugdtong na hearing (That’s why there are further hearings),” one of the lawyers said. He added, “Luy’s testimony would have to stop somewhere” in proving the scheme, and that is when other documentary evidence enters the picture.

Contentious list

A list of Special Allotment Release Orders (SAROs) – a document that authorizes a government agency to incur obligations or expenditure – also became the subject of scrutiny by the defense lawyers known for their vehement objections.
 
The SAROs – which allegedly came from Cambe – were either faxed or delivered to Napoles, as witnessed by Luy during the years 2006 to 2010. 

Luy said the SAROs – which indicated government funds would soon be directed to the Napoles-controlled NGOs – were given in exchange for kickbacks for Revilla.

These transactions were recorded by Luy in a ledger, which now forms part of the evidence in the PDAF scam cases. His ledger was earlier regarded by other defense lawyers as hearsay for being merely a reflection of what Napoles had told Luy.

In the court hearing, defense lawyers pointed out that a list of Revilla’s endorsed government projects was prepared in September 2013, but the SAROs were received over a 6-year period. They questioned whether Luy could remember all the details of the transactions. 

But the lawyer from the prosecution team explained that the list was based on the details which Luy recorded in his ledger as then finance officer of Napoles.

Court room mood

Inside the court room, Luy was attentive and sometimes jolly. The witness appeared intimidated during the times defense lawyers repeatedly and vehemently raised objections over the questions of the prosecutor.

At one point in the hearing, Luy was visibly shocked when defense lawyer Ancheta made a swift objection. 

Revilla shook his head in apparent disagreement, when Luy testified. The senator, dressed in a light-green barong, remained mostly calm throughout the afternoon proceedings. 

The senator-actor regarded Luy’s testimony as a “bad script.” 

“Hantayin na lang natin lalabas ang katotohanan (Let’s just wait for the truth to come out),” he said.

Asked what his message to Luy is, he said, “Tell the truth.”

In a separate interview, Luy, in response to Revilla, said he would. – Rappler.com