March 18, 2018, 6:27 am
Facebook iconTwitter iconYouTube iconGoogle+ icon
1 Philippine Peso = 0.07065 UAE Dirham
1 Philippine Peso = 2.03925 Albanian Lek
1 Philippine Peso = 0.03424 Neth Antilles Guilder
1 Philippine Peso = 0.38878 Argentine Peso
1 Philippine Peso = 0.02441 Australian Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.03424 Aruba Florin
1 Philippine Peso = 0.03848 Barbados Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 1.59465 Bangladesh Taka
1 Philippine Peso = 0.03042 Bulgarian Lev
1 Philippine Peso = 0.00725 Bahraini Dinar
1 Philippine Peso = 33.68565 Burundi Franc
1 Philippine Peso = 0.01924 Bermuda Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.02513 Brunei Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.13197 Bolivian Boliviano
1 Philippine Peso = 0.06274 Brazilian Real
1 Philippine Peso = 0.01924 Bahamian Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 1.24856 Bhutan Ngultrum
1 Philippine Peso = 0.1833 Botswana Pula
1 Philippine Peso = 385.14813 Belarus Ruble
1 Philippine Peso = 0.03843 Belize Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.02492 Canadian Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.01817 Swiss Franc
1 Philippine Peso = 11.56676 Chilean Peso
1 Philippine Peso = 0.12147 Chinese Yuan
1 Philippine Peso = 54.65564 Colombian Peso
1 Philippine Peso = 10.85764 Costa Rica Colon
1 Philippine Peso = 0.01924 Cuban Peso
1 Philippine Peso = 1.71451 Cape Verde Escudo
1 Philippine Peso = 0.3954 Czech Koruna
1 Philippine Peso = 3.40189 Djibouti Franc
1 Philippine Peso = 0.11583 Danish Krone
1 Philippine Peso = 0.95768 Dominican Peso
1 Philippine Peso = 2.18536 Algerian Dinar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.24322 Estonian Kroon
1 Philippine Peso = 0.3384 Egyptian Pound
1 Philippine Peso = 0.52366 Ethiopian Birr
1 Philippine Peso = 0.01554 Euro
1 Philippine Peso = 0.03857 Fiji Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.01376 Falkland Islands Pound
1 Philippine Peso = 0.01377 British Pound
1 Philippine Peso = 0.08486 Ghanaian Cedi
1 Philippine Peso = 0.90092 Gambian Dalasi
1 Philippine Peso = 173.16275 Guinea Franc
1 Philippine Peso = 0.14113 Guatemala Quetzal
1 Philippine Peso = 3.94498 Guyana Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.15083 Hong Kong Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.45346 Honduras Lempira
1 Philippine Peso = 0.11564 Croatian Kuna
1 Philippine Peso = 1.22816 Haiti Gourde
1 Philippine Peso = 4.83821 Hungarian Forint
1 Philippine Peso = 264.23624 Indonesian Rupiah
1 Philippine Peso = 0.06596 Israeli Shekel
1 Philippine Peso = 1.24719 Indian Rupee
1 Philippine Peso = 22.77799 Iraqi Dinar
1 Philippine Peso = 725.18276 Iran Rial
1 Philippine Peso = 1.91035 Iceland Krona
1 Philippine Peso = 2.45864 Jamaican Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.01361 Jordanian Dinar
1 Philippine Peso = 2.04381 Japanese Yen
1 Philippine Peso = 1.94402 Kenyan Shilling
1 Philippine Peso = 1.31156 Kyrgyzstan Som
1 Philippine Peso = 76.64486 Cambodia Riel
1 Philippine Peso = 7.62813 Comoros Franc
1 Philippine Peso = 17.31435 North Korean Won
1 Philippine Peso = 20.43921 Korean Won
1 Philippine Peso = 0.00577 Kuwaiti Dinar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.01578 Cayman Islands Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 6.19392 Kazakhstan Tenge
1 Philippine Peso = 159.13813 Lao Kip
1 Philippine Peso = 28.96306 Lebanese Pound
1 Philippine Peso = 2.99731 Sri Lanka Rupee
1 Philippine Peso = 2.51808 Liberian Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.22701 Lesotho Loti
1 Philippine Peso = 0.05865 Lithuanian Lita
1 Philippine Peso = 0.01194 Latvian Lat
1 Philippine Peso = 0.02549 Libyan Dinar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.17605 Moroccan Dirham
1 Philippine Peso = 0.31722 Moldovan Leu
1 Philippine Peso = 0.9521 Macedonian Denar
1 Philippine Peso = 25.75991 Myanmar Kyat
1 Philippine Peso = 45.95998 Mongolian Tugrik
1 Philippine Peso = 0.15526 Macau Pataca
1 Philippine Peso = 6.7526 Mauritania Ougulya
1 Philippine Peso = 0.6314 Mauritius Rupee
1 Philippine Peso = 0.29954 Maldives Rufiyaa
1 Philippine Peso = 13.72489 Malawi Kwacha
1 Philippine Peso = 0.35769 Mexican Peso
1 Philippine Peso = 0.07511 Malaysian Ringgit
1 Philippine Peso = 0.22628 Namibian Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 6.86803 Nigerian Naira
1 Philippine Peso = 0.5935 Nicaragua Cordoba
1 Philippine Peso = 0.14867 Norwegian Krone
1 Philippine Peso = 1.99584 Nepalese Rupee
1 Philippine Peso = 0.0263 New Zealand Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.0074 Omani Rial
1 Philippine Peso = 0.01924 Panama Balboa
1 Philippine Peso = 0.0625 Peruvian Nuevo Sol
1 Philippine Peso = 0.0606 Papua New Guinea Kina
1 Philippine Peso = 1 Philippine Peso
1 Philippine Peso = 2.12524 Pakistani Rupee
1 Philippine Peso = 0.0653 Polish Zloty
1 Philippine Peso = 105.73297 Paraguayan Guarani
1 Philippine Peso = 0.07002 Qatar Rial
1 Philippine Peso = 0.07245 Romanian New Leu
1 Philippine Peso = 1.09698 Russian Rouble
1 Philippine Peso = 16.21431 Rwanda Franc
1 Philippine Peso = 0.07214 Saudi Arabian Riyal
1 Philippine Peso = 0.14897 Solomon Islands Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.25735 Seychelles Rupee
1 Philippine Peso = 0.34725 Sudanese Pound
1 Philippine Peso = 0.15738 Swedish Krona
1 Philippine Peso = 0.02519 Singapore Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.01377 St Helena Pound
1 Philippine Peso = 0.4272 Slovak Koruna
1 Philippine Peso = 146.78723 Sierra Leone Leone
1 Philippine Peso = 10.96576 Somali Shilling
1 Philippine Peso = 380.96766 Sao Tome Dobra
1 Philippine Peso = 0.16833 El Salvador Colon
1 Philippine Peso = 9.90727 Syrian Pound
1 Philippine Peso = 0.22641 Swaziland Lilageni
1 Philippine Peso = 0.59908 Thai Baht
1 Philippine Peso = 0.04615 Tunisian Dinar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.04292 Tongan paʻanga
1 Philippine Peso = 0.07466 Turkish Lira
1 Philippine Peso = 0.13004 Trinidad Tobago Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.56124 Taiwan Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 43.40131 Tanzanian Shilling
1 Philippine Peso = 0.50135 Ukraine Hryvnia
1 Philippine Peso = 70.1616 Ugandan Shilling
1 Philippine Peso = 0.01924 United States Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.54386 Uruguayan New Peso
1 Philippine Peso = 156.42555 Uzbekistan Sum
1 Philippine Peso = 703.30896 Venezuelan Bolivar
1 Philippine Peso = 437.93767 Vietnam Dong
1 Philippine Peso = 1.99827 Vanuatu Vatu
1 Philippine Peso = 0.04836 Samoa Tala
1 Philippine Peso = 10.18969 CFA Franc (BEAC)
1 Philippine Peso = 0.05194 East Caribbean Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 10.18969 CFA Franc (BCEAO)
1 Philippine Peso = 1.85379 Pacific Franc
1 Philippine Peso = 4.80666 Yemen Riyal
1 Philippine Peso = 0.22646 South African Rand
1 Philippine Peso = 99.83648 Zambian Kwacha
1 Philippine Peso = 6.96229 Zimbabwe dollar

SC vs SolGen on Napoles case: Luy ‘actually deprived of liberty’

By Malou Mangahas

Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism

AT A press conference on Wednesday in response to a PCIJ report on his office’s manifestation recommending the acquittal of “pork-barrel queen” Janet Lim Napoles in the serious illegal detention of whistleblower Benhur Luy, Solicitor General Jose C. Calida noted that his position assigns him the circumstance of serving as the 16th member of the Supreme Court. 

He also defended submitting the manifestation – dated Jan. 11, 2017 and received by the 13th Division of the Court of Appeals on Jan. 20, 2017 – in part by saying that “when we look at the evidence, the transcript of records, there are many glaring instances which will support the acquittal of the accused.”

But the manifestation digresses from how the body that Calida says he is the 16th member of has evaluated and ruled on precisely the same case.

Six months earlier, on July 13, 2016, the Second Division of the Supreme Court had denied the “Petition for Review on Certiorari with Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction filed by petitioner Janet Lim Napoles.”

The decision noted that the petition had “(assailed) the Court of Appeals Decision dated March 26, 2014 and Resolution dated July 8, 2014, which found no grave abuse of discretion in the filing of an information for serious illegal detention against (Napoles) and the subsequent issuance of a warrant for her arrest.”

But among the high court’s conclusions was that “Napoles has been found guilty of serious illegal detention with proof beyond reasonable doubt, a quantum of evidence higher than probable cause. Resolving whether there was probable cause in the filing of information before the trial court and in the issuance of an arrest warrant would be ‘of no practical use and value’.”

Associate Justice Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen penned the decision. Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio (chairperson of the Second Division), Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion, and Associate Justice Mariano C. del Castillo concurred. Associate Justice Jose C. Mendoza was on official leave.

Under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure/Rules of Court adopted by the Supreme Court, a Petition for Certiorari may be filed “when any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.”

Napoles had named the following as respondents in her petition: “Hon. Secretary Leila De Lima, Prosecutor General Claro Arellano, And Senior Deputy State Prosecutor Theodore M. Villanueva, In Their Capacities As Officers Of The Department Of Justice; Hon. Elmo M. Alameda, In His Capacity As Presiding Judge Of The Regional Trial Court Of Makati, Branch 150, National Bureau Of Investigation (NBI); Arturo F. Luy, Gertrudes K. Luy, Annabelle Luy-Reario, and Benhur K. Luy.”

The petition for certiorari was not the first that Napoles had filed with the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. She had filed at least two such petitions previously for the same case. 

Then last September, Napoles’s lawyers filed a “reply brief” in which “the appellant reiterated her argument that the essential element of deprivation of liberty is absent and wanting in this case.” 

This apparently led to the OSG’s recent manifestation that has caught many people – including officials in the executive and judicial branches -- by surprise. 

At the Wednesday press conference, Solicitor General Calida said that, “it is my well-considered opinion and that of my assistants that the RTC (Makati Regional Trial Court Branch 150) erred in convicting Napoles.”

The OSG had furnished the Makati RTC and the lawyers of Napoles a copy of its January 2017 manifestation, but not the lawyers of Benhur Luy.

According to Calida, Luy’s behavior during his three-month alleged detention by Napoles at the retreat house run by priests close to Napoles, and at the Napoles family residence “belies the fact that he was actually detained or deprived of his liberty.” 

“With facts like these,” he said, “can you in conscience say that she (Napoles) should be convicted for the crime of serious illegal detention?” 

In Calida’s mind, Napoles had become “a victim of injustice” and that “it is very unfair if Janet Napoles will suffer incarceration for life for a crime she did not commit. That is a travesty of justice which my office cannot countenance.”

Yet, the same matters that seemingly still bother the Solicitor General had already been discussed and reviewed at length by the Supreme Court’s second division last July. After examination of the records of the case, the high court ended up denying Napoles’s petition for certiorari, issuing a 16-page ruling.

On the matter of “whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding no grave abuse of discretion: first, in filing an information for serious illegal detention against Napoles; and, second, in the issuance of a warrant for her arrest,” the Supreme Court decision stated: 

• “This Petition must be denied for being moot and academic. In any case, the Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari. There was no grave abuse of discretion either in the filing of information in court or in the issuance of the arrest warrant against Napoles.”

On the filing of the serious illegal detention case against Napoles, the Supreme Court decision stated:

• “There was no grave abuse of discretion in the filing of Information against Napoles. The Review Resolution sufficiently explained that during the preliminary investigation stage, there was probable cause to believe that Napoles and Lim, her brother, illegally deprived Benhur Luy of his liberty:

• “[T]he undersigned hereby rules that there is probable cause that respondents committed the crime of Serious Illegal Detention and should be held for trial. Relative thereto, it should be noted that the crime of Serious Illegal Detention has the following elements:

• “the offender is a private individual;

• “he kidnaps or detains another or in any other manner deprives the latter of his liberty;

• “the act of detention or kidnapping is illegal; and 

• “in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances are present: (a) the kidnapping or detention lasts more than 3 days; or (b) it is committed by simulating public authority; or (c) any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made; or (d) the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, or a public officer.

• “Relative to the instant case, there is no question regarding the first element, as both respondents are private individuals. There is no allegation to the contrary that respondents [Reynald] Lim and Janet Lim Napoles are private indiv[i]duals.

• “The issue in this case actually revolves around the second element of the crime, which is the question of whether complainant Benhur Luy was actually deprived of his liberty....”

On whether Benhur Luy “was actually deprived of his liberty,” the Supreme Court decision stated:

• “It appears that there is sufficient evidence to establish that complainant Benhur Luy was actually deprived of his liberty.

• “First of all, it is an undisputed fact that complainant Benhur Luy executed an affidavit which detailed the deprivation of his liberty. His elaboration of the deprivation of his liberty should be given weight vis-a-vis the allegations of respondents....

• “Second, the undersigned also finds the claim that complainant Benhur Luy went on a “spiritual retreat” at Bahay (ni) San Jose as contrary to human nature (to say the least). The records would show that respondent Janet Lim Napoles was extremely mad at complainant Benhur Luy for obtaining unauthorized loans in her behalf. With the anger of respondent Janet Lim Napoles, the undersigned finds it difficult to believe that complainant Benhur Luy would choose to have a spiritual retreat with priests that are closely associated with respondent Janet Lim Napoles. Why would complainant Benhur Luy choose to stay in an establishment that has close ties with respondent Janet Lim Napoles if the latter was already hell bent on filing a criminal case against him?

• “Sixth, an examination of the facts and circumstances of the instant case leads us to conclude that respondents had motive to deprive complainant Benhur Luy of his liberty. Respondent Janet Lim Napoles averred that she discovered that complainant Benhur Luy illegally obtained two (2) loans in her behalf. This, in turn, angered respondent Janet Lim Napoles, and the latter even threatened to file a criminal case against him.

• “However, complainant Benhur Luy’s alleged knowledge of the anomalous transactions of JLN Group of Companies would place respondent Janet Lim Napoles in a compromising position. If complainant Benhur Luy is sued, then the latter would not have any choice but to reveal his knowledge on the involvement of JLN in the PDAF (Priority Development Assistance Fund or pork barrel), Malampaya, and the Fertilizer scams. To avoid this, respondents restrained his liberty, thereupon forcing complainant Benhur Luy’s silence.

• “Obviously, fishing into the motives of the perpetrators of this crime is an ardent task. However, the undersigned finds that the above-captioned proposition makes more sense than the one proffered by respondents. While the undersigned does not deny that there is evidence that complainant Benhur Luy committed the crime of qualified theft, their defense that he went on a spiritual retreat, [i]n a house with close ties with respondent Janet Lim Napoles, is simply unfathomable to believe.

• “Moreover, even if the alleged knowledge of complainant Benhur Luy on the anomalies involving JLN group of companies is disregarded, it is still logical to conclude that the qualified theft committed by the latter created a motive on the part of respondents to detain him.

• “With regard to the third element, and considering our above conclusion, it is crystal clear that the act of depriving Benhur Luy’s liberty is illegal. Both respondents had no authority and/or justifiable reason to detain and deprive complainant Benhur Luy of his liberty.

• “As to the fourth element, it is undisputed that complainant Benhur Luy was deprived of his liberty for more than three (3) days. In fact, it lasted for months starting December 2012 up to March 2013, when complainant Benhur Luy was rescued by the NBI.

• “Lastly, with regard to the participation of respondent Janet Lim Napoles, it is evident that she was greatly involved in the deprivation of liberty of complainant Benhur Luy. The statements made by Merlita Sunas and Maria Flor Villanueva clearly manifest respondent Janet Lim Napoles’s knowledge of the crime.

• “Moreover, Benhur Luy’s detention at Bahay (ni) San Jose, which has close ties with respondent Janet Lim Napoles, is indicative that she had personal knowledge of what was happening. As earlier ruled, it would be highly illogical for Benhur Luy to have his retreat in a house that has very close ties to Janet Napoles. In our mind, complainant Benhur Luy’s confinement at Bahay (ni) San Jose was caused by respondent Janet Lim Napoles.

• “The most damning link between the crime and respondent Janet Lim Napoles is the motive behind complainant Benhur Luy’s deprivation of liberty. Consistent with our earlier finding that the deprivation was undertaken in order to prevent complainant Benhur Luy from divulging information on JLN group of companies’ involvement in the Fertilizer Fund, Malampaya, and PDAF scams, it is clear that respondent Janet Lim Napoles authored and/or orchestrated this unlawful three (3) month detention.

• “It is true that the Review Resolution reversed the initial finding of lack of probable cause against Napoles and Lim. However, this in itself does not show grave abuse of discretion.

• “The very purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to give the prosecutor a chance to correct any errors that he or she may have committed in issuing the resolution ordering the filing of an information in court or dismissing the complaint. “Reception of new evidence is not within the office of a Motion for Reconsideration.” A reversal may result if a piece of evidence that might have yielded a different resolution was inadvertently overlooked.

• “In initially dismissing the criminal complaint filed by Benhur Luy’s family, the prosecutor disregarded the purported motive behind Benhur Luy’s detention. According to the initial Resolution, whether Napoles and Lim detained Benhur Luy to prevent him from exposing the anomalous transactions of the JLN Group of Companies involving the Priority Development Assistance Fund would spawn an entirely different proceeding; hence, the issue is irrelevant in the proceedings involving the serious illegal detention charge.

• “Although motive is not an element of a crime, it is a “prospectant circumstantial evidence” that may help establish intent. In this case, the Review Resolution sufficiently explained why it was “contrary to human nature” for Benhur Luy to go on a three (3)-month spiritual retreat with priests that have close ties with Napoles; and, instead, BenhurLuy had been detained at Bahay ni San Jose, transferred from place to place until he was rescued in Pacific Plaza because he knew first-hand of Napoles’s involvement in the pork barrel scam.”

On whether Makati RTC 150 Presiding Judge Elmo M. Alameda committed grave abuse of discretion when he issued a warrant of arrest for Napoles, the Supreme Court decision stated:

• “Neither was there grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of the arrest warrant against Napoles. That Judge Alameda issued the arrest warrant within the day he received the records of the case from the prosecutor does not mean that the warrant was hastily issued. ‘Speed in the conduct of proceedings by a judicial or quasi-judicial officer cannot per se be instantly attributed to an injudicious performance of functions. For one’s prompt dispatch may be another’s undue haste.’ – PCIJ. February 2017
No votes yet

Column of the Day

The tragedy of Dengvaxia

By DAHLI ASPILLERA | March 16,2018
‘Blood test is mandatory, Dr. Halstead told Sanofi in 2016: “I was quite astonished and upset that this mass immunization is going forward.” Without the blood test.’

Opinion of the Day

Duterte is mistaken

By ELLEN TORDESILLAS | March 16, 2018
‘There is no unilateral constitutional authority to withdraw from the Rome Statute of the ICC.’