May 1, 2017, 4:30 am
Facebook iconTwitter iconYouTube iconGoogle+ icon
1 Philippine Peso = 0.07338 UAE Dirham
1 Philippine Peso = 2.47153 Albanian Lek
1 Philippine Peso = 0.03551 Neth Antilles Guilder
1 Philippine Peso = 0.30767 Argentine Peso
1 Philippine Peso = 0.0267 Australian Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.03576 Aruba Florin
1 Philippine Peso = 0.03996 Barbados Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 1.62058 Bangladesh Taka
1 Philippine Peso = 0.03591 Bulgarian Lev
1 Philippine Peso = 0.00753 Bahraini Dinar
1 Philippine Peso = 33.97123 Burundi Franc
1 Philippine Peso = 0.01998 Bermuda Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.02787 Brunei Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.13766 Bolivian Boliviano
1 Philippine Peso = 0.06313 Brazilian Real
1 Philippine Peso = 0.01998 Bahamian Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 1.28122 Bhutan Ngultrum
1 Philippine Peso = 0.20824 Botswana Pula
1 Philippine Peso = 400.00001 Belarus Ruble
1 Philippine Peso = 0.03992 Belize Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.02724 Canadian Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.01979 Swiss Franc
1 Philippine Peso = 13.24575 Chilean Peso
1 Philippine Peso = 0.13775 Chinese Yuan
1 Philippine Peso = 58.71728 Colombian Peso
1 Philippine Peso = 11.01139 Costa Rica Colon
1 Philippine Peso = 0.01998 Cuban Peso
1 Philippine Peso = 2.01439 Cape Verde Escudo
1 Philippine Peso = 0.49203 Czech Koruna
1 Philippine Peso = 3.51329 Djibouti Franc
1 Philippine Peso = 0.13587 Danish Krone
1 Philippine Peso = 0.94126 Dominican Peso
1 Philippine Peso = 2.18054 Algerian Dinar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.28573 Estonian Kroon
1 Philippine Peso = 0.36064 Egyptian Pound
1 Philippine Peso = 0.45667 Ethiopian Birr
1 Philippine Peso = 0.01826 Euro
1 Philippine Peso = 0.04187 Fiji Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.01546 Falkland Islands Pound
1 Philippine Peso = 0.01544 British Pound
1 Philippine Peso = 0.08339 Ghanaian Cedi
1 Philippine Peso = 0.88012 Gambian Dalasi
1 Philippine Peso = 183.86813 Guinea Franc
1 Philippine Peso = 0.14668 Guatemala Quetzal
1 Philippine Peso = 4.08292 Guyana Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.1554 Hong Kong Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.46693 Honduras Lempira
1 Philippine Peso = 0.13577 Croatian Kuna
1 Philippine Peso = 1.35684 Haiti Gourde
1 Philippine Peso = 5.7015 Hungarian Forint
1 Philippine Peso = 266.45355 Indonesian Rupiah
1 Philippine Peso = 0.07222 Israeli Shekel
1 Philippine Peso = 1.28482 Indian Rupee
1 Philippine Peso = 23.5964 Iraqi Dinar
1 Philippine Peso = 648.13188 Iran Rial
1 Philippine Peso = 2.12587 Iceland Krona
1 Philippine Peso = 2.56723 Jamaican Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.01416 Jordanian Dinar
1 Philippine Peso = 2.22689 Japanese Yen
1 Philippine Peso = 2.05694 Kenyan Shilling
1 Philippine Peso = 1.34302 Kyrgyzstan Som
1 Philippine Peso = 80.01199 Cambodia Riel
1 Philippine Peso = 9.22717 Comoros Franc
1 Philippine Peso = 17.98202 North Korean Won
1 Philippine Peso = 22.74046 Korean Won
1 Philippine Peso = 0.00607 Kuwaiti Dinar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.01638 Cayman Islands Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 6.28332 Kazakhstan Tenge
1 Philippine Peso = 163.51649 Lao Kip
1 Philippine Peso = 30.09391 Lebanese Pound
1 Philippine Peso = 3.03696 Sri Lanka Rupee
1 Philippine Peso = 1.81818 Liberian Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.26693 Lesotho Loti
1 Philippine Peso = 0.06091 Lithuanian Lita
1 Philippine Peso = 0.0124 Latvian Lat
1 Philippine Peso = 0.02813 Libyan Dinar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.1977 Moroccan Dirham
1 Philippine Peso = 0.38132 Moldovan Leu
1 Philippine Peso = 1.11848 Macedonian Denar
1 Philippine Peso = 27.13287 Myanmar Kyat
1 Philippine Peso = 48.19181 Mongolian Tugrik
1 Philippine Peso = 0.16005 Macau Pataca
1 Philippine Peso = 7.13467 Mauritania Ougulya
1 Philippine Peso = 0.69331 Mauritius Rupee
1 Philippine Peso = 0.30689 Maldives Rufiyaa
1 Philippine Peso = 14.34486 Malawi Kwacha
1 Philippine Peso = 0.38017 Mexican Peso
1 Philippine Peso = 0.08672 Malaysian Ringgit
1 Philippine Peso = 0.26573 Namibian Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 6.28372 Nigerian Naira
1 Philippine Peso = 0.59521 Nicaragua Cordoba
1 Philippine Peso = 0.17029 Norwegian Krone
1 Philippine Peso = 2.03996 Nepalese Rupee
1 Philippine Peso = 0.02907 New Zealand Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.00769 Omani Rial
1 Philippine Peso = 0.01998 Panama Balboa
1 Philippine Peso = 0.06481 Peruvian Nuevo Sol
1 Philippine Peso = 0.06333 Papua New Guinea Kina
1 Philippine Peso = 1 Philippine Peso
1 Philippine Peso = 2.09251 Pakistani Rupee
1 Philippine Peso = 0.07709 Polish Zloty
1 Philippine Peso = 111.06893 Paraguayan Guarani
1 Philippine Peso = 0.07275 Qatar Rial
1 Philippine Peso = 0.08271 Romanian New Leu
1 Philippine Peso = 1.1388 Russian Rouble
1 Philippine Peso = 16.36144 Rwanda Franc
1 Philippine Peso = 0.07493 Saudi Arabian Riyal
1 Philippine Peso = 0.15666 Solomon Islands Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.27063 Seychelles Rupee
1 Philippine Peso = 0.13306 Sudanese Pound
1 Philippine Peso = 0.17603 Swedish Krona
1 Philippine Peso = 0.02788 Singapore Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.01547 St Helena Pound
1 Philippine Peso = 0.44368 Slovak Koruna
1 Philippine Peso = 148.85115 Sierra Leone Leone
1 Philippine Peso = 10.96903 Somali Shilling
1 Philippine Peso = 447.57244 Sao Tome Dobra
1 Philippine Peso = 0.17427 El Salvador Colon
1 Philippine Peso = 10.28931 Syrian Pound
1 Philippine Peso = 0.26494 Swaziland Lilageni
1 Philippine Peso = 0.69131 Thai Baht
1 Philippine Peso = 0.04823 Tunisian Dinar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.04623 Tongan paʻanga
1 Philippine Peso = 0.07099 Turkish Lira
1 Philippine Peso = 0.13406 Trinidad Tobago Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.60376 Taiwan Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 44.53547 Tanzanian Shilling
1 Philippine Peso = 0.52997 Ukraine Hryvnia
1 Philippine Peso = 72.76723 Ugandan Shilling
1 Philippine Peso = 0.01998 United States Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.56084 Uruguayan New Peso
1 Philippine Peso = 73.94606 Uzbekistan Sum
1 Philippine Peso = 0.19929 Venezuelan Bolivar
1 Philippine Peso = 454.32568 Vietnam Dong
1 Philippine Peso = 2.15265 Vanuatu Vatu
1 Philippine Peso = 0.05182 Samoa Tala
1 Philippine Peso = 11.97263 CFA Franc (BEAC)
1 Philippine Peso = 0.05395 East Caribbean Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 12 CFA Franc (BCEAO)
1 Philippine Peso = 2.17123 Pacific Franc
1 Philippine Peso = 4.99201 Yemen Riyal
1 Philippine Peso = 0.26515 South African Rand
1 Philippine Peso = 103.68632 Zambian Kwacha
1 Philippine Peso = 7.23077 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
Category: 
Rating: 
No votes yet
Twitter icon
Facebook icon
Google icon
LinkedIn icon
Pinterest icon
Reddit icon
Yahoo! icon
e-mail icon

Column of the Day

A modern Nostradamus

By NESTOR MATA | April 27,2017
737 View(s) 0 Comment(s)
‘A mystic predicted Donald Trump’s presidency and now claims to have a date for World War III.’

Opinion of the Day

Happy Labor Day

By DAHLI ASPILLERA | May 01, 2017
54 View(s) 0 Comment(s)
‘Capital must not profit more than labor. --Lope K. Santos, in “Banaag at Sikat” (dawn and daybreak), a novel.’