Tuason a Trojan horse?

MANILA, Philippines - Is Ruby Tuason a Trojan horse?

Sen. Antonio Trillanes raised this possibility yesterday, saying Tuason could be out to derail the filing of a plunder case against Senate Minority Leader Juan Ponce Enrile.

“I think the game plan now is for them to find a way to downgrade the case to be filed, make it bailable so that they will not be detained,” Trillanes said. “They’ll use it as a leverage to hostage the government.” 

When Tuason faced the Senate Blue Ribbon committee, she tried to withhold information or evade questions about her dealings with Enrile as well as his former chief of staff, Jesicca “Gigi” Reyes, Trillanes noted

He said Tuason’s claims that she merely delivered P9 million in kickbacks in 2008 are an attempt to derail the case. 

“It is way below the threshold amount for plunder,” he said. 

The threshold amount for plunder is P50 million.

Trillanes believes the Enrile camp is dropping Sen. Jinggoy Estrada  in light of the latest developments.

“It is unfortunate for Senator Estrada, but it seems that Tuason is out to save Senator Enrile but not Senator Estrada,” he said in Filipino.

“It was pretty obvious that she was pinning down Jinggoy and saving Enrile. It’s every man for himself.  In this case, it is unfortunate that Senator Estrada is being left out.”  

In an interview Thursday, Estrada cited inconsistencies in Tuason’s testimony. 

Trillanes said Tuason can be a credible witness because she is an insider, but that she needs “to spill the beans” to bolster allegations of pork barrel fund misuse.

Tuason missed the opportunity to prove to the public that she is worthy to be a permanent state witness, he added.

Trillanes said Tuason was reluctant when asked about the relationship of Enrile and Reyes, and that she did not want to remember details.

“There were loopholes,” said Trillanes.

Trillanes dared Tuason to take a lie detector test to disprove doubts on her credibility.

“Tuason is the go-between,” he said. “Her job is to check confirmation first from Senator Enrile. Why would she transact hundreds of millions worth of money with Attorney. Gigi? How sure is she that Senator Enrile would receive it?”

Trillanes also raised doubts on the background of Tuason’s lawyer, Dennis Manalo.

“When I dug deeper, my suspicions grew,” he said.

“I think one of the lawyers of Ms. Ruby Tuason used to be part of the Ponce Enrile law firm, Atty. Dennis Manalo. I have yet to validate that information, but I got it from credible sources. I think we have a problem there, conflict of interest at the very least, and collusion at most.” 

Manalo has long been a partner of the Siguion-Reyna  Montecillo Ongsiako law firm. 

Law firm founder Leonardo Siguion-Reyna, who has passed away, was the husband of Armida Siguion-Reyna, a step-sister of Enrile.

Manalo was also part of the defense panel during the impeachment trial of ousted chief justice Renato Corona in 2012. 

Recently, he made headlines when he acted as lawyer for actor Vhong Navarro who filed charges against businessman Cedric Lee, model Deniece Cornejo and several others after he was beaten up at Fort Bonifacio last month.

However, Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago believes Tuason is credible enough to pin down Enrile for conspiring with Reyes and Janet Lim-Napoles to siphon off millions from his pork barrel funds.

Enrile’s presence during the meetings between Tuason and Reyes is “sufficient to prove conspiracy,” she added.

During the hearing, Santiago pointed out an entry in Tuason’s affidavit: “Atty. Gigi Reyes would pick up the money alone.  I remember occasions that Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile would join us, when we are almost done, for a cup of coffee.”

In answer to question No. 45, Santiago quoted Tuason’s answer: “He did not stay long. After coffee, he would leave and sometimes he would come to pick up Atty. Gigi Reyes.”

Santiago said the mere presence of Enrile, even if he did not say anything, establishes that he was a conspirator in the scam.

“In order to judge the intention of the contracting parties, their contemporaneous and subsequent acts shall be principally considered,” she said, quoting Article 1371 of the Civil Code.

Santiago also quoted Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code: “A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.”

She cited a 1996 Supreme Court decision in Petso v. People: “To hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, it must be shown that he had performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the conspiracy.  

“Such an act may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself, or of moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the time of the commission of the crime or by asserting moral ascendancy over the other co-conspirators to execute or implement the conspiracy.”

She added that in People v. Camaddo, the SC ruled in 1993: “Well-settled is the rule that it is not indispensable that a co-conspirator should take a direct hand in the commission of a felony.” – Christina Mendez