Sandiganbayan clears Napoles, 2 others of graft, malversation
The Sandiganbayan Second Division acquits Janet Napoles and two others of graft and malversation charges due to lack of evidence INQUIRER PHOTO / NINO JESUS ORBETA
MANILA, Philippines — The Sandiganbayan acquitted Janet Napoles and two others of graft and malversation charges due to lack of evidence.
In a 98-page decision dated September 18, the anti-graft court’s second division said presented pieces of evidence failed to prove the liability of Napoles and ex-officials of the National Livelihood Development Corp. (NLDC), Gondelina Amata and Gregoria Buenaventura, in the supposed illegal transfer of funds worth P5 million.
The case involved the P5 million Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) of former La Union Rep. Victor Francisco Ortega. The money was allegedly illegally transferred to the Social Development Program for Farmers Foundation, Inc. (SDPFFI), reportedly a fake NGO owned by Napoles, through its project partner NLDC in 2009.
The Sandiganbayan’s September 18 decision likewise ordered the lifting of hold departure orders against Napoles, Amata, and Buenaventura.
However, Napoles, who earned the tag “Pork Barrel Queen” due to her role in the notorious PDAF scam, would remain detained at the Correctional Institution for Women since she had been convicted of other graft charges filed against her.
Article continues after this advertisementREAD: Court junks Napoles’ bid to be acquitted of plunder in PDAF scam
Article continues after this advertisementSandiganbayan: Insufficient proof vs Napoles
Based on the Sandiganbayan ruling, no documentary evidence proved that Napoles owned and controlled SDPFFI.
It also noted that prosecutors failed to give sufficient evidence to back their allegation that the P5 million did not reach the intended beneficiaries as it was purportedly pocketed by Napoles, Amata, and Buenaventura, and that SDPFFI and the beneficiaries were nonexistent.
READ: Napoles draws 108 years jail term for graft, malversation of Baterina’s PDAF
The anti-graft court explained that “the NGO may have moved or relocated to another office, and the named beneficiaries may have died, moved or relocated to another place making it challenging for the FIO to locate them.”
“Verily, business entities can still exist, and business transactions can still be conducted, albeit illegitimately, even without a valid office address,” it likewise said.
