Ombudsman report clears ex-PCSO official, GMA of plunder

MANILA, Philippines - One of the accused in a plunder case involving P365.9 million in intelligence funds of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) has presented to the Sandiganbayan a report from Ombudsman prosecutors clearing her and Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and several others of the charges.

Former PCSO general manager Rosario Uriarte, a respondent in the case, submitted a copy of the 56-page document – called the Somido report – to the Sandiganbayan First Division as an attachment to a 22-page appeal asking for a reconsideration of a decision junking her motion for judicial determination of probable cause. The case was filed with the Sandiganbayan four months ago.

The Somido panel report was named after Deputy Special Prosecutor Cornelio Somido who led a panel that recommended the downgrading of the plunder charges against Arroyo and the others to graft in connection with the alleged misuse of the PCSO intelligence funds. With Somido in the panel were directors Nellie Boguen-Golez and Joaquin Salazar, and lawyers Roque Dator and Mary Susan Guillermo. An identical report from the same panel bore a signed notation of Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales rejecting it.

Aside from Arroyo and Uriarte, the other accused were former PCSO chairman Sergio Valencia, former board members Manuel Morato, Raymundo Roquero, Jose Reyes Taruc V and Ma. Fatima Valdez.

The panel also dismissed all charges against Commission on Audit (COA) chairman Reynaldo Villar, Nilda Plaras of the agency’s intelligence and confidential fund audit unit and former executive secretary Eduardo Ermita.

Arroyo earlier asked for the presentation of the original joint resolution which Morales had rejected. 

After rejecting the Somido report, she ordered the creation of another panel of prosecutors and graft investigators who, through a review resolution, upgraded the charge to plunder, a non-bailable offense.

Through lawyer Anacleto Diaz, the former president said the Office of the Ombudsman should have submitted the Somido panel report to the anti-graft court as part of the records.

“Accused GMA intends to present the resolution of the panel as evidence for her defense, among others. She received information, and so alleges, that the findings of the panel are materially different from the findings and conclusions of the Ombudsman in her review joint resolution in that unlike the latter, the panel found no sufficient evidence to support the crime of plunder charges under the present information,” he said.

The Somido panel report stated that “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,” it explained.

“This Office is of the view that there must be evidence showing that the amount was already converted in some form that would establish ownership by the public officer i.e. bank deposits, properties, stocks in the name of the public officer or his/her dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or business associates and not by mere physical possession of the amount,” the report read.

Uriarte’s lawyer Benjamin Santos said the Sandiganbayan should be made aware of the contents of the Somido resolution because it reinforces their argument that there is no basis for the filing of a non-bailable case against her.

“Both versions of the said Somido resolution expressly found no factual and legal basis to recommend the filing of plunder charges against accused Uriarte and her co-accused, thereby completely validating accused Uriarte’s allegations in her Omnibus Motion etc. to the effect that there is divergence of opinions between the panel of investigators headed by Director Somido on one hand and the Office of the Ombudsman on the other, such that consistent and pursuant to the Supreme Court’s ruling… that no probable cause exists,” Uriarte’s lawyer said.

“What was merely established in the record was that respondent Uriarte received the check and the money representing the additional CIFs as requested, approved by respondent GMA and confirmed by the respondent Board of Directors,” Santos said. “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,” he said. Morales vetoed the resolutions in July or four months after they were signed by Somido and panel members.

Director Diosdado Calonge, the head of the prosecution team now handling the case before the Sandiganbayan, had referred to the Somido panel report as “a mere scrap of paper.”