THE Sandiganbayan Sixth Division has thrown out separate motions filed by businesswoman Janet Lim Napoles and Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) finance director Teresita Panlilio seeking the junking of 20 criminal charges filed against them in relation to allegations of fraud involving P50 million in public funds.
In a 29-page resolution released last August 30, the anti-graft court held that it found no merit in the defendants’ motions to quash as well as in Napoles’ request to suspend proceedings and to require the prosecution to produce the full records of its preliminary investigation.
The court reminded the defense that back on May 17, 2022, it had already found probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest against all accused in the 10 counts of graft and 10 counts of malversation of public funds.
The cases alleged that Napoles and Panlilio conspired with former DAR undersecretary for Support Services Jerry Pacturan, chief accountant Rowena Agbayani, and private defendants Evelyn de Leon and Ronald John Lim Jr. in diverting P50 million to in bogus livelihood projects.
Prosecutors said the money instead went into two private foundations founded by Napoles — Ginintuang Alay sa Magsasaka Foundation Inc. (GAMFI) headed by Lim and Philippine Social Development Foundation Inc. (PSDFI) headed by De Leon.
They said the charges stemmed from an investigation into 27 DAR projects worth P220 million in four regions and several municipalities.
While the projects were supposed to benefit agrarian reform communities, graft investigators said none of the projects materialized.
Napoles argued that there was no proof that she owned the NGOs cited as there was no document presented to show that she is an incorporator, proprietor, or even a member of the Board of Trustees of the two foundations.
The court however said the issue of ownership of the NGOs is a matter of evidence best threshed out during a full-blown trial.
At the same time, it clarified that the cases against Napoles are not limited to her link to the NGOs but also cover “specific acts in furtherance of the conspiracy to commit the crimes charged.”
On the other hand, Panlilio’s argument that she was deprived of her right to speedy disposition of her cases was also swept aside as the court invoked the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dansal vs. Fernandez that the 10-day period for the investigating officer to issue a resolution was merely “directory” rather than mandatory.
The Sandiganbayan said it did not find any hint that the Ombudsman completely disregarded established procedures or that the investigation was motivated by malice or an intent to harass the respondents.
