Sandigan denies Jack Lam dismissal plea over P50-M bribery raps
Text size
VP denies Gracioso’s cash-delivery allegations
Early-stage cancer can be more easily treated than in the later stages. That is why doctors recommend regular cancer…
‘As far as I recall and based on the record, there is no showing.’
President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. is flying to Singapore for a five-day working visit upon the invitation of Singaporean…
The Sandiganbayan has denied a motion by gambling operator Jack Lam to quash criminal charges against him involving a P50-million bribery scheme at the Bureau of Immigration (BI).
In a resolution promulgated Wednesday, the anti-graft court’s Sixth Division ruled that the information filed against Lam for violating Presidential Decree 46 remains valid. The decree prohibits private individuals from giving gifts or benefits to public officials in the course of their duties.
Lam had argued the case lacked factual basis and should be dismissed because charges against his co-accused — former immigration deputy commissioners Al Argosino and Michael Robles — were dropped in 2021.
The court previously ruled that convicting the former officials of the decree violations while also convicting them of plunder would constitute double jeopardy. However, Associate Justice Sarah Jane Fernandez wrote in the new resolution that such protections do not apply to Lam.
“Unlike accused Argosino and Robles, accused Lam is not, at the same time, charged with, and found guilty of, Direct Bribery and/or Plunder,” the resolution stated.
The case stems from a 2016 incident in which Lam, through a middleman, allegedly paid the officials P50 million. The payment was reportedly intended to secure the release of more than 1,300 Chinese nationals arrested for working illegally at Lam’s Fontana Leisure Park in Pampanga.
Lam contended he was not a public official and that there was no evidence he transacted directly with the commissioners. The court rejected this, noting that at this stage, the prosecution only needs to allege the acts, not prove them.
The court also refused to lift a hold departure order against Lam. While the prosecution labeled Lam a “fugitive from justice” due to his reported presence in Hong Kong, the court declined to make an official declaration on his status, noting a lack of evidence regarding when he left the country or his awareness of the charges at that time.
