SC affirms Napoles indictment
The SC ruled the petitions had been mooted after the Sandiganbayan found probable cause and issued warrants for the arrest of those involved in the P16-million PDAF diversion by Cagas
Janet Lim Napoles
Daily TribuneThe SC ruled the petitions had been mooted after the Sandiganbayan found probable cause and issued warrants for the arrest of those involved in the P16-million PDAF diversion by Cagas
Janet Lim Napoles
The Second Division of the Supreme Court has upheld the Office of the Ombudsman's indictment of trader Janet Lim Napoles, the alleged mastermind of the P10-billion Priority Development Allotment Fund, or PDAF, scam.
In a decision written by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the consolidated petitions of Napoles and some officials from the Department of Budget and Management were dismissed.
The case pertains to the 2007 PDAF of former Davao del Sur representative Douglas R. Cagas, totaling P16 million, allegedly diverted through the Countrywide Agri and Rural Economic and Development Foundation, Inc., and the Philippine Social Development Foundation, Inc.
The funds were redirected from the DBM to the Technology Resource Center, the implementing agency for fictitious projects.
Special Audit Report 2012-03 of the Commission on Audit backed the whistleblowers' accounts, which led the National Bureau of Investigation to file a complaint with the Ombudsman in 2013.
Graft investigators issued a consolidated resolution after finding probable cause against Napoles and others for malversation and violation of RA 3019's Section 3(e).
Cagas and Technology Resource Center head Antonio Y. Ortiz faced direct bribery charges, while Napoles was accused of corrupting public officials under Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code.
Napoles and her co-petitioners sought relief from the SC, which noted that the Ombudsman's executive determination of probable cause is generally not subject to review unless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion.
It said that questions about the prosecution's preliminary investigation become moot once a trial court finds probable cause and issues an arrest warrant.
The SC ruled the petitions had been mooted after the Sandiganbayan found probable cause and issued warrants for the arrest of those involved in the P16-million PDAF diversion by Cagas.
It maintained that even if the petitions were not moot, they should be denied as there was no grave abuse of discretion committed by the Ombudsman.
The SC said, "The Office of the Ombudsman's determination of probable cause does not rule on the issue of guilt or innocence but evaluates evidence to determine if there is sufficient reason to believe a crime has been committed."