Headlines

Sandigan asked to deny Gigi Reyes' plea to reconsider dismissing plunder case

February 12, 2017 | 4:27pm

Sandigan asked to deny Gigi Reyes' plea to reconsider dismissing plunder case

State prosecutors from the Office of the Ombudsman said the arguments raised by Gigi Reyes were “bereft of merits.”

Boy Santos, File

MANILA, Philippines — State prosecutors from the Office of the Ombudsman have urged the anti-graft court Sandiganbayan to affirm its ruling denying the motion of Jessica Lucila “Gigi” Reyes, the former chief of staff of Juan Ponce Enrile, to dismiss her plunder case and to order her immediate release from detention.

In its 25-page opposition paper submitted before the Sandiganbayan Third Division, the prosecution said Reyes' motion for reconsideration “deserves not even an iota of merit” as it was supposedly grounded on erroneous arguments.

“Consequently, there is no ground for accused Reyes to be released from detention. The circumstances she submitted to the court for her release are irrelevant and have nothing to do with the validity of the information in this case,” the prosecution said.

Reyes is facing a plunder case before the Third Division as co-accused of Enrile and the alleged pork barrel scam mastermind Janet Lim-Napoles.

Based on the information of the case Enrile, through Reyes, received a total of P172.834-million kickbacks by allocating portions of his Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or pork barrel to the fake foundations allegedly owned by Napoles.

The Third Division had earlier denied the respective motions to quash filed by Enrile and Reyes.

In her motion for reconsideration, Reyes maintained that the information of the case is “fatally-defective” and “confounding” even after the prosecution, upon the order of the Supreme Court (SC), submitted a bill of particulars supplying additional information on the case.

Reyes said that for instance, the case information failed to identify her series or combination of overt criminal acts constituting a plunder offense.

She said the prosecution also failed to identify the main plunderer in the case as well as the specific amount of wealth that she supposedly pocketed in the commission of the alleged offense.

Reyes also pointed out that there is also no showing that the money that Napoles supposedly gave to her for Enrile came from the public funds, but rather, it might come from the businesswoman's personal funds.

The prosecution said the arguments raised by Reyes were “bereft of merits.” It added that first and foremost, the SC had already affirmed the validity and sufficiency of the case information when it accepted the bill of particulars submitted by the ombudsman.

The prosecution said the details that Reyes is seeking to be included in the charge sheet are “evidentiary matters” that must be tackled during the trial proper.

“Details of the specific actor of a particular overt act are evidentiary matters that need not be alleged in the Information,” the prosecution said.

“Besides, there is nothing in the Plunder Law requiring the identification of the supposed 'main plunderer,' as it recognizes that the crime of plunder may be committed collectively as shown by the phrase 'in connivance with',” it added.

The prosecution further pointed out that Republic Act 7080 or the Plunder Law does not make any distinction as to the nature of the source of kickbacks or commissions received by the accused. Hence, whether the kickbacks came from the government coffers or from Napoles' own pocket is irrelevant to the case. Napoles' own pocket is irrelevant to the case.

“It (Plunder Law) merely provides that the ill-gotten wealth was acquired through any combination or series of overt acts...Indeed, the Information, in this case, alleged that accused Reyes conspired with her co-accused... Once conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act of all the conspirators,” the prosecution said.