GMA urges ombudsman to be fair in P366-M PCSO case

MANILA, Philippines - Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo urged the Office of the Ombudsman to show a sense of honesty and fairness by releasing the original preliminary investigation results on the alleged misuse of P366 million of Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) funds from 2008 to 2010.

In a 12-page reply to the prosecution’s opposition to a motion for production of documents filed before the Sandiganbayan, Arroyo said the anti-graft agency should uphold justice and fair play insofar as the existence and production of the so-called Somido report – which dismissed the plunder charge against her and her co-accused – are concerned.

The Pampanga representative, through her lawyer Anacleto Diaz, said the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) had not been honest with respect to the existence of the first resolution issued by the original panel of prosecutors and graft investigators who conducted the preliminary probe.

Diaz said that while the prosecution had claimed that not one of them had seen a copy of the Somido report – named after the head of the panel Deputy Special Prosecutor Cornelio Somido – they admit that it was not approved and disregarded by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales.

“The Prosecution should be candid with this Honorable Court. After claiming that ‘no one of the handling prosecutors has acknowledged the existence of the preliminary investigating panel’s resolution, as not one of them has seen the same,’ the prosecution states positively in the next paragraph that the said resolution ‘was never approved, and in fact, disregarded altogether by the approving authority’,” Diaz said.

“The Prosecution is contradicting itself. How can it argue the character or status of a document, the existence of which the Prosecution does not acknowledge? It appears from the contradictory statements and inconsistent positions of the Prosecution that it has obtained information regarding the subject resolution, which the Prosecution should not be allowed to withhold from this Honorable Court in the interest of justice and fair play,” he added.

Diaz pointed out that the first resolution, although already made public by a fellow respondent in the case as an attachment to a pleading, should be ordered produced by the Sandiganbayan so that the court could weigh on its value which “may spell the difference between acquittal and indictment and continued incarceration for a non-bailable offense.”

“It is respectfully submitted that the production of the Resolution of the Panel of Investigators which conducted the preliminary investigation of the case a quo, is likewise to enable (the Sandiganbayan) to decide issues of fact pertaining to the conflicting findings of the Ombudsman,” Diaz said.

The Somido resolution dismissed the plunder charges for lack of evidence against Arroyo and former PCSO general manager Rosario Uriarte, former PCSO chairman Sergio Valencia, former assistant general manager for finance Benigno Aguas and former board members Manuel Morato, Raymundo Roquero, Jose Reyes Taruc V and Ma. Fatima Valdez and merely recommended the filing of graft charges against them.

Plunder is a non-bailable offense while respondents in graft cases could post bail.

Documents showed that the Somido panel also dismissed all charges against Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita and former Commission on Audit (COA) officials Reynaldo Villar and Nilda Plaras.

The Somido panel is composed of Somido, Directors Nellie Boguen-Golez and Joaquin Salazar, and lawyers Roque Dator and Mary Susan Guillermo.

Ombudsman Morales supposedly rejected the Somido panel’s findings and created a new investigating team that later recommended the filing of plunder charges against Arroyo and the other accused before the Sandiganbayan.

The first Somido resolution stated that “what was merely established in the record was that respondent Uriarte received the check and the money representing the additional confidential and intelligence funds (CIFs) as requested, approved by respondent GMA (Arroyo) and confirmed by the respondent Board of Directors. The encashment of the checks was evidenced by respondent Uriarte’s signature in the dorsal portion of the checks. The record is completely wanting of proof that the proceeds of the checks became the ill-gotten wealth of the respondents.”

It further stated “the mere fact of receipt of the amount by a public officer by the nature of his public position does not automatically categorize the amount received as ill-gotten wealth. For to construe receipt alone at that stage would create a notion that cash advances in small amounts even for minor purposes such as travel, petty cash and the like of a cashier or any public officer would already be classified as ill-gotten wealth.” – With Paolo Romero