The Sandiganbayan, through its Special Third Division, acquitted Juan Ponce Enrile, his former chief of staff, Jessica Lucila “Gigi” Reyes, and Janet Lim Napoles of fifteen counts of graft involving 172.83 million pesos of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF). It also found Napoles civilly liable to return the amount subject of the case.
In ordering Napoles to return P172.38 million, the Sandiganbayan, in effect, affirmed that there is a ground for the restitution of the P172.83 million. It is a recognition that the amount, which came from the PDAF allocation of Enrile, was unlawfully disbursed in violation of the law that penalizes graft and corrupt practices, and the law on plunder, the same laws of which the three were indicted and prosecuted. Instead of applying the full force of the law, they were all absolved from criminal liability, while Napoles was found to be civilly liable.
It is worthwhile to state that Enrile and Reyes benefitted from generous application of the rule on liberality. They were accorded and granted legal reliefs not normally available to other accused who are similarly situated.
Enrile was allowed to post bail in his plunder case, a non-bailable offense. He was allowed to do so NOT on the ground that the charges against him are not strong, the only ground allowed by law, but because of his alleged “health condition”, a ground which was never used as a basis to grant bail to persons accused of committing non-bailable offenses. Enrile became an exception, and had the rare privilege to be granted bail based on his “health condition”. He was granted a privilege not granted to ordinary detention prisoners who are similarly situated and have far worse health and medical conditions.
How can we forget Antonio Molina, a political prisoner who had stomach cancer? His plea for a hospital arrest was disallowed. Despite the seriousness of his illness and the nature of the treatment and pain management he needed, he was not granted the same privilege accorded to Enrile. He died in jail in November 2021.
Gigi Reyes is also a recipient of the same treatment when a Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus was issued in her favor resulting in her release from detention. Again, her habeas corpus case was the first of its kind. All the prevailing doctrines applicable to habeas corpus cases were ignored. It was granted despite her being validly charged in court and being on trial. As a result, “inordinate delay” in the proceedings is now a ground to grant the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus. It became an exception to the doctrine in Ilagan vs. Enrile.
The same privilege was not given to Ernesto Jude Rimando, a political prisoner who was arrested based on a warrant of arrest issued against a certain Allan Morales. It was obvious that the authorities arrested the wrong person. His habeas corpus petition was denied despite sufficient proof that he was Ernesto Jude Rimando, and not Allan Morales. Rimando’s case squarely fits into the exception enunciated in Salibo vs. Warden of Quezon City (G.R. No. 197597, Apr 8, 2015), where the Supreme Court ruled that mistaken identity is an exception to the Ilagan vs Enrile doctrine. Yet, the court did not apply the exception and instead ruled that the grounds raised are matters of defense in the criminal proceedings. Rimando died from liver disease in July 23, 2024.
To cap it all, they are now scot-free. They were acquitted despite a finding that there was a ground for restitution from where it can be inferred that public funds were unlawfully disbursed and misused.
It seems that a different standard is set in the prosecution of the likes of Enrile, et al. and in the prosecution of ordinary government employees, like the school principal accused of malversation involving the measly amount of P6,000.00. She was convicted and was penalized with imprisonment.
Enrile, Napoles, and Reyes, were treated with kid gloves, they received not even a tap on the wrist, while the school principal was treated with an iron fist and received an eleven-year prison sentence.
This acquittal will have an adverse effect on the peoples’ clamor for accountability in the face of the ongoing investigation on the misuse of funds for flood control projects. It will foster impunity and will encourage grafters and their cohorts. This is their assurance that while they will be investigated and possibly prosecuted, they will eventually be absolved and acquitted.#
