THE Sandiganbayan anti-graft court has denied an Omnibus Motion filed by plunder convict Janet Lim Napoles challenging the validity of four criminal charges filed against her, asking for suspension of the proceedings, or outright dismissal of the cases.
Napoles was named defendant in one count of graft and two counts of malversation of public funds filed early this year over alleged fraudulent transactions involving P4.85 million government funds from the Department of Agriculture.
Named co-defendants were former Nabcor president Alan A. Javellana, former General Services Unit head Romulo Relevo, accountant Ma. Julie A. Villarolvo-Johnson and former Pampanga Rep. Zenaida Ducut.
Associate Justice Bayani H. Jacinto penned the 12-page resolution, with Associate Justices Michael Frederick L. Musngi and Lorifel Lacap Pahiman concurring.
In her motion, Napoles claimed there was insufficient basis for the finding of probable cause by the Office of the Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan.
She said the prosecution’s evidence did not show that she is connected to or the owner of the Social Development Program for Farmers Foundation Inc. (SDPFFI), the non-government organization that received the entire amount. She added the prosecution had also failed to implead SDPFFI in any of the cases.
Prosecutors said the money was intended for livelihood projects in the First District of La Union province but the projects were found to be non-existent.
Napoles also argued that the pendency of the Anti-Money Laundering Council’s (AMLC) case against her and the private foundation at the Branch 18 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila represents a prejudicial question that merits suspension of proceedings in the graft and malversation cases.
Prosecutors countered that since a motion for judicial determination of probable cause is a prohibited motion, a motion for reconsideration challenging the finding of probable cause must be similarly barred.
In denying Napoles’ motion, the court clarified that the indictments were not simply based on her ownership of the SDPFFI or her connection to the NGO. Rather, the cases concern her alleged acts that facilitated the criminal offenses.
The acts imputed on accused Napoles included falsifying documents to make it appear that there were valid transactions chargeable against the fund as well as her undue receipt of the funds for her own benefit.
“The accusation that accused Napoles utilized the SDPFFI to achieve this does not make the latter’s incorporation or composition germane to the issue of whether she is criminally liable at this point,” the court declared.
