If the two houses of Congress think that they can get Bolante to own up to his role as the “architect” of the fertilizer fund anomaly, they are just wasting their time, their efforts and the taxpayers’ money. As shown time and again, the natural tendency of every malefactor especially in government is to deny liability for any wrongdoing and to sometimes even claim that they have done no wrong at all. This aspect of human nature is again being concretely demonstrated by Bolante with his vehement denial and challenge to “prove it” coupled with an avowal that “my conscience is clear”. “Euro general” de la Paz who took the fall for that Moscow fiasco involving 103,000 euros may be an exception but like Bolante, he is apparently protecting a higher official who may be involved.
As shown by his Oscar winning performance in both chambers, Bolante looks more than smart enough to know that he should not leave any of his “fingerprints” or any direct evidence whether documentary or testimonial linking him or his principal, if any, to the wrongful act/s he planned and allegedly did. His cocky posture in the Senate and the lower house as he unflappably tells his story and hurls his challenge to his critics vividly show that he believes he has plugged all loopholes and covered his tracks quite well. Being out of reach for more than two years and having 16 days hospital rest are enough time for him to prepare for that “convincing” performance.
Apparently Bolante seems to be so sure of himself because the scam he has supposedly committed is the easiest to hide and therefore hardest to prove by direct evidence. He seems to be convinced that by merely denying, he can easily extricate himself especially if he would outrightly clear from involvement other “bigger” and more powerful “fishes” that will ensure a whitewash of his case.
He also knows that his story would not be contradicted by the other parties involved like the proponents or recipients and suppliers who benefitted from the transaction because they will be incriminating themselves if they tell a different story denouncing the rottenness of the deal. He is very much aware that all of them are in one boat and any one can not afford to rock the boat or put a hole in it, otherwise they will all sink.
But Bolante should not be so sure of his position. Actually there is no more need to extract an admission of guilt from him or to present any direct evidence to pin him down and establish his culpability. Under our law there is such a thing as circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the existence of the main fact may be inferred according to reason and common experience. The Rules of Court (Rule 133 Section 4) considers such kind of evidence also known as indirect or presumptive evidence as sufficient anchor for a judgment of conviction if (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived have been established; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to warrant a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt (People vs. Delim, 142773, Jan. 23, 2003).
In Bolante’s case, facts and circumstances have already been established showing at least probable cause if not yet proof beyond reasonable doubt that there was a P728 million fertilizer fund scam in the election year 2004 and he was principally responsible for it. First, he requested the release of P728 million from the DBM on February 2, 2004, three months before the elections. The following day, February 3, 2004 with uncharacteristic speed, the DBM released the funds to Bolante. Second, Bolante, a mere undersecretary whose authority is usually limited only up to P5 million per transaction, disbursed the said P728 million before the elections by allotting the amounts of P3-5 million for the purchase of fertilizers to a total of 105 Congressmen, 52 governors, 1 vice governor and 23 town mayors, all known allies of the administration although 22 of those listed did not avail of such funds. Third, the Lower House members in Bolante’s list allegedly received a total of P404 million, but most of them denied having received the allotments either in cash or in fertilizer, some rejected them because there is something “fishy” in the deal while others who received them spent them for other purposes. Fourth, the funds were used to purchase liquid fertilizer from one supplier, Feshan Philippines Inc. which was awarded the contract nationwide without any bidding. Fifth, in the purchase of the fertilizers there was excessive overpricing of as much as 1200 % per COA findings. Sixth, lawmakers-proponents involved in the use of the funds signed prepared memorandum agreements between them and the foundations they tasked to purchase the liquid fertilizer. Seventh, at the height of the investigation of the exposé, Bolante fled abroad until he was caught in the US for an expired visa where he exhausted all legal means to avert deportation by seeking asylum allegedly because of threats to his life.
Bolante’s guilt can also be shown by pointing out that he is not telling the whole truth with (1) the inconsistencies and self contradictions in his story and (2) with more credible testimonies and documents.
The truth about his statement that he did not flee and would like to return but was prevented by US authorities could also be easily disproven with the help of the US Embassy. His closeness to someone in the Palace who was instrumental in his appointment to the DA can also be shown to belie his statement that he owes his appointment to nobody.
Funds disbursed as huge as P728 million must surely be covered by proper receipts especially because most Congressmen have denied receiving them. Up to now, no such receipts have been produced. Capiz Rep. Antonio del Rosario had already come out with his own experience and with the names of some persons who have firsthand knowledge of the shady deal on the sharing of commissions totaling 75% among Bolante, the “proponents”—lawmakers and the suppliers and runners. Senator Miriam Santiago has likewise cited the testimony of Bolante’s supposed “runner Jose Barredo and a certain Aytona”. The COA findings on overpricing and the Anti-Money Laundering Council report also confirm the SCAM.
Of course all these issues on credibility and weight of evidence to prove the guilt or innocence of persons are within the province of our courts to resolve, which is the Sandiganbayan in this case. The filing of said case however depends on the Ombudsman which seems to be taking its own sweet time. Hence the only venue available at this stage in search for the truth is Congress. Wherever may be the venue, everyone involved particularly Bolante must realize that this is a very explosive case that may trigger another mass upheaval akin to EDSA II, depending on how people will accept its denouement.
* * *
E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net