Ex-PNP chief Versoza, 5 others convicted for graft over rubber boats mess gmanetwork.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from gmanetwork.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
(MANILA BULLETIN FILE PHOTO)
Denied by the court was Napoles’ motion to suppress evidence “for being inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding in any court or tribunal under Section 18 of Republic Act No. 10175 or the Cybercrime Law.”
Napoles has one plunder and 15 graft charges before the anti-graft court in connection with Enrile’s Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) which the former senator allegedly endorsed to the bogus non-government organizations (NGOs) owned the businesswoman.
The case against Enrile is still pending. The former senator is out on bail “on humanitarian reasons.”
In her motion, Napoles claimed that the evidence ranging from their office’s Daily Disbursement Records, Summary of Rebates, draft endorsement letters, project listings, memorandum of agreements, and working financial plans should be deemed as inadmissible as they are “fruits of the poisonous tree.”
Published January 20, 2021, 2:00 PM
Former Senator Juan Ponce Enrile failed to fend off a witness in his plunder case since the Sandiganbayan Third Division junked his Objection and allowed prosecution witness Atty. Ryan P. Medrano, Director IV of the Field Investigation Office of the Ombudsman, to use his Judicial Affidavit.
Former Senator Juan Ponce Enrile
(MANILA BULLETIN FILE PHOTO)
Enrile is facing one plunder and 15 graft charges because of the reported misuse of his priority development assistance fund (PDAF), which he allegedly endorsed to the bogus non-government organizations (NGOs) owned by Janet Lim Napoles in exchange for kickbacks.
For Enrile’s plunder case, the Office of the Special Prosecutor submitted the Judicial Affidavit of Atty. Medrano dated February 12, which Enrile filed an Objection to.
(MANILA BULLETIN FILE PHOTO)
Lacuna and his wife filed a motion for reconsideration and argued that the prosecution failed to prove the spirit of R.A. 1379, which required that the property to be forfeited must be found to have been unlawfully acquired.
They said the original copies of their statement of assets liabilities and net worth (SALN) were neither presented nor admitted by them, so there was an unjust implementation of the law.
The Lacuna couple also drew comparisons to the forfeiture cases of the Marcos family, which were dismissed by different divisions of the Sandiganbayan.
They said the Marcos family amassed wealth beyond their means, but they were still let off the hook.
MANILA BULLETIN FILE
Tuquero was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act alongside Sangguniang Bayan (SB) members Lourdes Alberto del Rosario, Rosario T. Mollasgo, Domingo Creer Villanueva, William Tuno Tuplano, Horacio Timola Aquino Jr., and Gomercindo Tebelin Litong.
They filed a motion for reconsideration on October 9, 2020 and argued that the facts alleged in the Information constituting the crime of graft was not proven in court.
They said that their co-accused, Mayor Jose dela Cruz Torres, was ousted on May 8, 2006. Hence, they argued, all transactions made by Torres after his ouster was done in his personal capacity. This negates their alleged act of conspiracy with Torres.