Sandigan asked to reconsider ruling, order arrest of Bolante

MANILA, Philippines - Arguing that proof of ill-gotten wealth is not necessarily needed in a case of plunder, ombudsman prosecutors asked the Sandiganbayan yesterday to reconsider its decision finding no probable cause to indict former agriculture undersecretary Jocelyn “Jocjoc” Bolante for plunder.

Government lawyers led by Louella Mae Oco Pesquera, in an 18-page appeal filed before the anti-graft court’s Second Division, said the elements of the crime charged against the accused were sufficiently stated in the complaint.

The Sandiganbayan, in an Aug. 15 decision, said it found no probable cause to charge Bolante and his other co-accused in the case that includes former agriculture secretary Luis “Cito” Lorenzo for plunder in connection with the misuse of P723 million of fertilizer funds.

The ruling basically stated that “after a painstaking review of the documents submitted by the Office of the Ombudsman, together with its Resolution dated March 18, 2011 that found probable cause to indict the herein accused of the crime of plunder, and the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee reports, the court finds and so rules, that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of the second element of the crime of plunder that the accused public officers amassed, accumulated or acquired ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt criminal acts.”

But instead of junking the plunder charge, magistrates directed the Office of the Ombudsman to present more evidence against the accused within 60 days.

Ombudsman prosecutors, however, disagreed with the Sandiganbayan decision and urged the court to reverse its findings and order the arrest of Bolante and his fellow respondents in the case.

Government lawyers said there was no need to establish that ill-gotten wealth of P50 million or higher be found in the hands of the accused government official and requiring the ombudsman to do so is a “grave error.”

“With utmost regret, the prosecution is unable to agree with the conclusion (of the court) without compromising the efficacy of the plunder law,” their motion for reconsideration read.