Enrile, Napoles, Reyes cleared in remaining 'pork barrel' graft case
MANILA, Philippines — Anti-graft court Sandiganbayan has cleared former senator Juan Ponce Enrile, his aide Gigi Reyes and businesswoman Janet Napoles in a remaining graft case connected to the pork barrel scam.
The three faced charges of siphoning P172 million in congressional Priority Development Assistance Funds when Enrile was a senator between 2004 and 2010 through bogus non-government organizations that Janet Napoles ran.
In the latest decision promulgated Friday, October 24, the Sandiganbayan Special Third Division ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the accusations against the now-101-year-old Enrile "beyond reasonable doubt."
The reasons for Enrile's acquittal center on the prosecution's failure to establish the elements of the offense, particularly evident bad faith or manifest partiality, and the absence of convincing proof that he received kickbacks.
Enrile, Reyes and Napoles were similarly acquitted of plunder complaints in a Third Division ruling in October 2024.
The cases were first filed in 2013, after reports broke out of a scheme that funnelled congressional discretionary funding through implementing organizations from where officials purportedly received kickbacks.
Two of Enrile's co-accused in plunder cases, former senator Bong Revills and Sen. Jinggoy Estrada had also been acquitted. They ran and returned as senators years after being released from detention. Enrile, meanwhile, was appointed chief presidential counsel under the Duterte administration.
The court lifted hold departure orders and released bonds for Enrile and the other acquitted individuals. Cases against four deceased accused were dismissed.
No proof of bad faith
The ruling hinged on the court's finding that Enrile's endorsement letters recommending non-governmental organizations for PDAF projects between 2007 and 2010 were merely recommendatory under the law at the time, before the Supreme Court's 2013 Belgica v. Ochoa decision that declared such practices unconstitutional.
"The prosecution failed to show that Enrile, Reyes, and Evangelista were motivated by evident bad faith and manifest partiality in issuing those letters," the decision stated.
The court also found whistleblower testimony about the alleged kickbacks unreliable. Ruby Tuason, a key witness, admitted she never delivered money to Enrile or dealt with him directly. Another whistleblower, Benhur Luy, conceded he never met Enrile and lacked personal knowledge that Enrile's staff received the funds.
Although Tuason claimed she delivered money to Enrile’s chief of steff, Gigi Reyes, the court found the testimony lacked details, such as the specific amounts, the project, the SARO involved, or the dates and locations of the alleged deliveries.
Citing testimonies, the court said that it "cannot be concluded that Enrile, Reyes, and Evangelista acted with manifest partiality and evident bad faith, or that they gave unwarranted benefits to the NGOs and/or accused private individuals. Nor did they cause undue injury to the government, as the prosecution failed to establish that any of them received kickbacks from Enrile's PDAF."
Digital records meant to prove payments — Daily Disbursement Reports from an external hard drive — were unsigned. Luy also could not assure the integrity of the data stored on his external hard drive, as he did not know who had access to it while he was detained, meaning tampering could not be ruled out.
"Overall, the court finds that the evidence for the prosecution does not pass the test of moral certainty and is insufficient to rebut the constitutional presumption of innocence. The prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt," the decision read. — Cristina Chi
- Latest
- Trending
