Sandigan upholds 15 graft cases vs DBM exec in pork scam

MANILA, Philippines – The anti-graft court Sandiganbayan’s Third Division has upheld 15 graft cases against Budget Undersecretary Mario Relampagos in connection with the pork barrel scam.

The 3rd division issued the ruling on Tuesday, September 2 – the same day that the court’s First Division released an August 28 resolution  dismissing 8 graft cases against the budget official due to the absence of probable cause. (READ: Court dismisses 8 graft cases vs DBM exec in PDAF scam)

In a 74-page resolution penned by Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang, the court affirmed its earlier judicial determination that the 15 cases are fit to stand trial.

The resolution also admitted proposed amendments by the prosecution team in the charge sheets of Senator Juan Ponce Enrile’s 15 graft cases, of which Relampagos and 3 of his staff are co-accused.

While the 1st division also admitted the proposed amendments which include the replacement of “Sub-ARO” to “SARO,” the two divisions differed in their treatment of the amendments.

The subject change involved replacing the use of the terms “Sub-Allotment Release Orders” to “Special Allotment Release Orders.”

Both orders authorize fund releases, but they differ in terms of the issuing authority.

A SARO is prepared by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), while a SubARO is prepared and issued by a specific line agency like the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Public Works and Highways.

The 1st division considered the change a “substantial amendment” in the Information or charge sheet, while the 3rd division considered it a mere “formal amendment.”

A substantial amendment could prejudice the rights of the accused, as he can no longer invoke the same defense if said changes were admitted.

Hence, a substantial amendment can only be admitted before an accused enters a plea on the charges against him.

Among Relampagos’ defenses against the graft charges was that his office does not issue a SubARO.

Enrile, Reyes arraignment 

Enrile, his former chief of staff Jessica Lucila “Gigi” Reyes, Relampagos, the budget official’s staff, and at least 30 others are set to be arraigned for the 15 graft cases on Friday, September 5.

Three of the accused whose cases were remanded to the Ombudsman for another preliminary investigation will not be among those set to plead before the court. (READ: Court orders review of graft charges vs 3 PDAF accused)

The arraignment was repeatedly postponed due to what was then a pending move to admit the proposed amendments in the charge sheets.

With the issue now resolved, Friday’s proceeding will be the first time Enrile and former aide Reyes will be meeting in court since the filing of charges against them.

Enrile, Reyes, and 3 others are charged with the non-bailable offense of plunder for allegedly conspiring to defraud the government P172 million ($3.9 million*) in Enrile’s Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF).

Relampagos and his staff were named co-accused in the graft cases for allegedly processing with undue haste the SAROs for Enrile’s PDAF.

The SAROs authorized specific agencies to incur expenditures from Enrile’s PDAF.

Substantial vs formal

According to the 3rd division resolution, the shift from “SubARO” to “SARO” merely conforms to the findings of the Ombudsman probe.

The joint resolution issued by the Ombudsman as a result of its preliminary investigation used SARO instead of SubARO.

“The aforesaid record of the preliminary investigation unquestionably show that there was never an advertence to a Sub-ARO in relation to the alleged complicity of the accused Relampagos et al in the commission of the crime,” the resolution said.

But the 1st division considered it a substantial amendment, adding that the cases of Relampagos should have been outrightly dismissed.

“Considering, however, that these two documents are issued by different offices then, this Court cannot take this as mere formal amendment but one which is substantial in nature,” read the 1st division resolution.

“It might not be amiss to state that had the Court known from the outset that a Sub-ARO was a completely different document from a SARO, and that a Sub-ARO was not issued by the DBM, no probable cause finding would have been issued against Relampagos et al in the first place,” the court said.

Differences in rulings

There are 3 divisions in the Sandiganbayan handling the PDAF scam cases.

The groupings were based on the principal accused. Enrile’s cases are lodged before the 3rd division, while the cases of Senators Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr’s and Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada are before the 1st and 5th divisions, respectively.

A proposal to create a special division for PDAF scam cases has yet to resolved by the Supreme Court.

One of the possible downsides of having multiple divisions trying the PDAF scam cases is the differences in rulings over similar pleadings.

Earlier, the 1st and 3rd divisions of the court likewise differed in their commitment order on where to detain alleged PDAF scam mastermind Janet Lim-Napoles.

While the 1st division ordered the Philippine National Police-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group to keep Napoles in its custody and not move her until further orders from the court, the 3rd division put her under the custody of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology.

The 3rd division’s commitment order was issued on a later date, making it the more recent order.

The 3rd division resolved that the PNP Special Action Force (SAF) Training School in Fort Sto Domingo in Laguna where Napoles was is not an actual jail as defined by law.

Napoles was then transferred from the police training facility to the Taguig jail. – Rappler.com

$1 = P43.67