5 Napoles Vs Sandiganbayan
5 Napoles Vs Sandiganbayan
Same; Same; Same; Clearly, the prosecution witnesses and the Same; Same; Same; Witnesses; Testimonial Evidence; The
documentary evidence supply interlocking pieces of information mere fact that the whistleblowers were conspirators themselves
that when taken together, provide a complete picture of the does not automatically render their testimonies incredible and
indispensability of the participation of Napoles in the scheme to unreliable.—Napoles nonetheless challenged the credibility of the
misappropriate public funds for the benefit of select individuals, whistleblowers, arguing that their testimonies should have been
by using the non-government Organizations (NGOs) as conduits received with “grave suspicion,” coming as they were from
for the Priority Development Assistant Fund (PDAF) projects of “polluted source[s].” However, as this Court earlier discussed, the
former Senator Enrile.—Arguably, there is no documentary testimonies of these prosecution witnesses were consistent, clear,
evidence directly linking Napoles to the NGOs used as conduits and corroborative of each other. Other testimonial and
for the PDAF-funded projects of former Senator Enrile. However, documentary evidence also substantiated the veracity of the
her ties to the officers of the NGOs involved in this case reveal whistleblowers’ statements during the bail hearing. In any case, a
otherwise. Napoles’ participation in the conspiracy was careful perusal of the assailed Sandiganbayan Resolutions
established through testimonial evidence, not only from one of her reveals that it considered the prosecution’s other testimonial and
former employees, but from four (4) witnesses — all of whom documentary evidence, and discussed it in relation to one another.
corroborate each other on material points. More importantly, they Among the documents that the Sandiganbayan considered were
testified on the minute details of the scheme that only those privy the letters requesting for the release of former Senator Enrile’s
to the conspiracy would be able to provide. Notably, Napoles did PDAF, the incorporation documents of the NGOs, the liquidation
not even refute their claims that they were her former employees, documents for the PDAF-funded projects, the SAROs itself, and
relying instead on singling out inconsequential details in their the DVs issued by the implementing agencies to the NGOs under
testimonies. Even the testimony of Ruby Chan Tuason, the the control of Napoles. In other words, the Sandiganbayan did not
middleperson who received the rebates of former Senator Enrile rely solely on the testimonies of the whistleblowers. Seeing as
on his behalf, confirmed that Napoles oversaw the there were other available evidence lending credence to their
implementation of the scheme to divert the disbursements of the testimonies, the Sandiganbayan did not gravely abuse its
PDAF. She personally met with Napoles to negotiate the discretion when it considered the testimonies of the
respective shares of the conspirators, and received the amount on whistleblowers in denying Napoles’ bail application, despite their
behalf of former Senator Enrile, which she subsequently turned participation in the conspiracy itself. The mere fact that the
over to Reyes. Since the whistleblowers personally received whistleblowers were conspirators themselves does not
instructions from Na- automatically render their testimonies incredible and unreliable.
249 250
VOL. 844, NOVEMBER 7, 2017 249 250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Napoles vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division) Napoles vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division)
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754506a0dd79050189003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/34 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754506a0dd79050189003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/34
10/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 844 10/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 844
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Bail; It is elementary especially when the prosecution more than amply established
that the factual findings of the trial court, especially on the that the evidence of guilt is strong. This is a matter of judicial
assessment or appreciation of the testimonies of witnesses, are discretion on the part of the trial court, which this Court may
accorded great weight and respect. In this case, it is the nullify only when the exercise of this discretion is tainted with
Sandiganbayan that had the opportunity to observe the arbitrariness and capriciousness that the trial court failed to act
deportment and behavior of the witnesses during the bail hearing. within the contemplation of law.
—At this point it should be emphasized that this Court is not the
proper forum to weigh the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.
It is elementary that the factual findings of the trial court, Certiorari.
especially on the assessment or appreciation of the testimonies of The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
witnesses, are accorded great weight and respect. In this case, it Stephen L. David, et al. for petitioner.
is the Sandiganbayan that had the opportunity to observe the The Solicitor General for respondent.
deportment and behavior of the witnesses during the bail hearing.
It was in a better position to pass judgment on the credibility of REYES, JR., J.:
these witnesses and the weight of their respective testimonies. At
any rate, Napoles was unable to establish any motive on the part Before this Court is a petition for certiorari under Rule
of her former employees, which would compel them to falsely 65 of the Rules of Court, which sought to nullify and set
testify against her and her co-accused. aside the Resolutions dated October 16, 20151 and March 2,
20162 of the Sandiganbayan in SB-14-CRM-0238. These
Criminal Law; Plunder; Plunder is a deplorable crime that Resolutions denied Janet Lim Napoles’ (Napoles)
unfairly exploits the trust that the public reposed in its officials. It application for bail because the evidence of her guilt for the
is inherently immoral not only because it involves the corruption of crime of Plunder is strong.
public funds, but also because its essence proceeds from a
rapacious intent.—The core issue, therefore, of whether there is Factual Antecedents
strong evidence of guilt on the part of Napoles, was resolved by
the Sandiganbayan in accordance with the relevant laws, rules, On September 16, 2013, the Office of the Ombudsman
and jurisprudence. Plunder is a deplorable crime that unfairly received the report of the National Bureau of Investigation
exploits the trust that the public reposed in its officials. It is (NBI), regarding its investigation on several persons,
inherently immoral not only because it involves the corruption of including Napoles, former Senator Juan Ponce Enrile
public funds, but also because its essence proceeds from a (Enrile) and his former Chief of Staff, Atty. Jessica Lucila
rapacious intent. This Court’s ruling in Estrada v. Reyes (Reyes). In its report, the NBI recommended to
Sandiganbayan, 369 SCRA 394 (2001), is a constant reminder of prosecute Napoles,
the magnitude of this offense.
Same; Same; Capital Punishment; Bail; It is precisely the _______________
enormous gravity of this offense that capital punishment is
imposed on those who are found guilty of Plunder. As a necessary 1 Penned by Presiding Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang, with
consequence, provisional liberty is not easily granted to those Associate Justices Samuel R. Martires (now a Member of this Court) and
accused of this offense, especially when the prosecution more than Sarah Jane T. Fernandez, concurring; Rollo, pp. 56-304.
amply established that the evidence of guilt is strong.—It is 2 Id., at pp. 339-372.
precisely the enormous gravity of this offense that capital
punishment is imposed on those who are found guilty of Plunder.
As a necessary consequence, provisional liberty is not easily
granted to those accused of this offense, 252
252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
for essentially misappropriating former Senator Enrile’s In 2004 to 2010, or thereabout (sic), in the Philippines, and
Priority Development Assistant Fund (PDAF) through within this Honorable Court’s jurisdiction, above named accused
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that were selected JUAN PONCE ENRILE, then a Philippine Senator, JESSICA
without the required bidding procedure.3 This case was LUCILA G. REYES, then Chief of Staff of Senator Enrile’s Office,
docketed as OMB-C-C-13-0318.4 both public officers, committing the offense in relation to their
Soon after, or on November 18, 2013, the Office of the respective offices, conspiring with one another and with JANET
Ombudsman received a Complaint from its Field LIM NAPOLES, RONALD JOHN LIM, and JOHN RAYMUND
Investigation Office (FIO), criminally charging former DE ASIS, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and criminally
Senator Enrile, Reyes, Napoles, and fifty-two (52) other amass, accumulate, and/or acquire ill-gotten wealth amounting to
individuals with violations of RA No. 7080 and Section 3(e) at least ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY-TWO MILLION EIGHT
of RA No. 3019.5 Said complaint was docketed as OMB-C- HUNDRED THIRTY-FOUR THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED
C-13-0396.6 PESOS (Php172,834,500.00) through a combination or series of
In a Joint Resolution dated March 28, 2014, the overt criminal acts, as follows:
Ombudsman Special Panel of Investigators found probable a) by repeatedly receiving from NAPOLES and/or
cause to indict Napoles, among others, with one (1) count of representatives LIM, DE ASIS, and others, kickbacks or
Plunder and fifteen (15) counts of violating Section 3(e) of commissions under the following circumstances: before,
RA No. 3019. They likewise recommended to immediately during and/or after the project identification, NAPOLES
file the necessary Informations against all the named gave, and ENRILE and/or REYES received, a percentage of
accused.7 the cost of a project to be funded from ENRILE’s Priority
Some of the named accused, including Napoles, filed Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), in consideration of
their respective motions for reconsideration. The Special ENRILE’s endorsement, directly or through REYES, to the
Panel of Investigators denied these motions in its Joint appropriate government agencies, of NAPOLES’
Order dated June 4, 2014, but dropped Ruby Chan Tuason nongovernment organizations which became the
as a respondent, in light of her admission as a State recipients and/or target implementors (sic) of
witness and her corresponding immunity from criminal ENRILE’s PDAF projects, which duly-funded projects
prosecution.8 turned out to be ghosts or fictitious, thus enabling
Thus, in an Information dated June 5, 2014, Napoles, NAPOLES to misappropriate the PDAF proceeds for
together with former Senator Enrile, Reyes, Ronald John her personal gain;
Lim and John Raymund De Asis, were charged with
Plunder in _______________
Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0238 filed with the
On July 7, 2014, Napoles filed her Petition for Bail,
Sandiganbayan.9 The pertinent portions of the Information
arguing that the evidence of the prosecution is insufficient
state:
to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. She
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754506a0dd79050189003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/34 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754506a0dd79050189003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/34
10/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 844 10/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 844
particularly assailed the credibility of the State witnesses respective municipalities were recipients of livelihood
(otherwise referred to as whistleblowers) as these are projects from former Senator Enrile’s PDAF; (c) they did
allegedly mere hearsay, tainted with bias, and baseless. not receive any agricultural package or livelihood training
Citing the res inter alios acta rule, Napoles submitted that from former Senator Enrile, the implementing agencies of
the testimonies of these whistleblowers are inadmissible his PDAF, or from any NGO; and (d) they did not sign or
against her.11 prepare any acknowledgment receipt or liquidation
In view of Napoles’ application for bail, the documents pertaining to the transactions.13
Sandiganbayan conducted bail hearings. The prosecution Furthermore, the prosecution presented another group
presented the following witnesses: (a) Carmencita N. of beneficiaries, whose testimonies were subject of the same
Delantar, then Director in the Department of Budget and stipulations: (a) Shiela May Cebedo, Municipal Mayor of
Management (DBM); Bacuag, Surigao del Norte; (b) Elyzer C. Chavez, City
(b) Susan P. Garcia, an Assistant Commissioner in the Mayor of Passi, Iloilo; (c) Benito D. Siadto, Municipal
Commission on Audit (COA), and the former Director of the Mayor of Kibungan, Benguet; (d) Florencio Bentrez,
Special Audit Office; (c) Ryan P. Medrano, the Graft Municipal Mayor of Tuba, Benguet; and (e) Jose C. Ginez,
Investigation and Prosecution Officer from the FIO, Office Municipal Mayor of Sta. Maria, Pangasinan. The defense
of the Ombudsman; (d) Marina Cortez Sula, former cross-examined this group of beneficiaries.14
employee of Napoles; (e) Mary Arlene Joyce Baltazar, After the conclusion of the prosecution’s presentation of
former bookkeeper for JLN Corporation; (f) Merlina P. evidence, Napoles manifested that she is not presenting
Suñas, former employee of Napoles; (g) Benhur K. Luy, any evidence for her bail application.15
former finance officer of Napoles; and (h) Ruby Chan
Tuason, former Social Secretary of former President Joseph _______________
E. Estrada.12
13 Id., at pp. 140-141.
14 Id., at pp. 141-143.
_______________
15 Id., at pp. 784-785.
10 Id.
11 Id., at pp. 774-783.
12 Id., at pp. 60-257.
256
256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
255
Napoles vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division)
x x x x
A FINAL WORD Preliminarily, it should be emphasized that since this is
The Court stresses, however, that in resolving this petition for a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court,
bail of accused Napoles, it is not passing judgment on the this Court’s review is limited to whether the
culpability or non-culpability of Senator Enrile, Atty. Reyes, Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion amounting to
accused Napoles, Lim[,] and de Asis. Again, in a petition for bail, lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing its assailed
the Court is only mandated to determine whether based on the Resolutions denying Napoles’ application for bail. The
pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution, proof evident Court’s certiorari jurisdiction
exists or the presumption of guilt is strong. As above discussed,
the prosecution had presented clear and strong evidence which _______________
leads to a well-guarded dispassionate judgment that the offense of
plunder has been committed as charged; that accused Napoles is 17 Id., at pp. 302-304.
guilty thereof, and that she will probably be punished capitally if 18 Id., at pp. 312-337.
the law were administered at this stage of the proceedings. 19 Id., at pp. 339-372.
20 Id., at p. 372.
_______________ 21 Id., at pp. 3-51.
257
258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Napoles vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division)
VOL. 844, NOVEMBER 7, 2017 257
Napoles vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division)
covers only errors of jurisdiction on the part of the
Sandiganbayan. It should be borne in mind that not every
WHEREFORE, accused Janet Lim Napoles’s (sic) Petition for error in the proceedings, or every erroneous conclusion of
Bail dated July 7, 2014, is DENIED for lack of merit. law or fact, constitutes grave abuse of discretion. Errors in
SO ORDERED.17 the appreciation of the parties’ evidence, including the
conclusions anchored on these findings, are not correctible
by the writ of certiorari.22
On November 4, 2015, Napoles moved for the
In this regard, Napoles bears the burden of showing that
reconsideration of the Sandiganbayan’s Resolution denying
the Sandiganbayan’s denial of her bail application was
her Petition for Bail.18 This motion was likewise deemed
capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, or despotic, so as to
unmeritorious and the Sandiganbayan denied it in its
amount to grave abuse of discretion. This Court is not a
Resolution dated March 2, 2016,19 viz.:
trier of facts. As such, it must be established that there was
WHEREFORE, accused Janet Lim Napoles’s (sic) Motion for a patent and gross abuse of discretion amounting to an
Reconsideration dated November 4, 2015 is DENIED for lack of evasion of a positive duty, or a virtual refusal to perform a
merit. duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of
SO ORDERED.20 law.23
It is within this framework that the Court reviewed the
assailed Sandiganbayan Resolutions.
Napoles thus filed the present petition before this Court,
alleging that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its The prosecution bears the
discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, in burden of proving that the
denying her bail application. She insists in the present evidence of Napoles’ guilt
petition that the prosecution was unable to discharge its for the crime of Plunder is
burden of proving that the evidence of her guilt is strong.21 strong.
Ruling of this Court
Despite the arrest of the accused, or his/her voluntary 24 Maguddatu v. Court of Appeals, 383 Phil. 255, 262; 326 SCRA 362,
surrender as the case may be, the accused may be granted 369 (2000).
provisional liberty under certain conditions. This right to 25 1987 CONSTITUTION, Article III, Section 13.
bail is 26 RULES OF COURT, Rule 114, Section 4.
27 Id., Rule 114, Section 7; See also Rule 114, Section 5.
_______________ 28 People v. Sandiganbayan (Special Division), 556 Phil. 596, 603-604;
529 SCRA 764, 772 (2007).
22 People v. Court of Appeals, 475 Phil. 568; 431 SCRA 610 (2004).
23 Yu v. Reyes-Carpio, 667 Phil. 474; 652 SCRA 341 (2011); see
Agdeppa v. Office of the Ombudsman, 734 Phil. 1; 723 SCRA 293 (2014);
see also Aleria, Jr. v. Velez, 359 Phil. 141; 298 SCRA 611 (1998).
260
260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
259 Napoles vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division)
266 267
266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 844, NOVEMBER 7, 2017 267
Napoles vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division) Napoles vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division)
268
VOL. 844, NOVEMBER 7, 2017 269
Napoles vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division)
268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Napoles vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division)
of former Senator Enrile, such as Tuason,67 were also given
5% of the project cost.68
review, and subsequently, the finalized versions were Another former employee of Napoles, Marina Cortez
returned to their office. Suñas, as the custodian of Sula (Sula), narrated that Napoles gave her instructions to
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754506a0dd79050189003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/34 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754506a0dd79050189003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/34
10/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 844 10/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 844
register approximately twenty (20) NGOs, including those Suñas and Luy corroborated the testimony of Sula on
that implemented the ghost projects funded by former the fictitious manner by which the NGOs were
Senator Enrile’s PDAF. The relevant information regarding incorporated. The three of them were all presidents of
these NGOs were listed in a red notebook that Sula kept to different NGOs, and they provided the names of their
assist her in the preparation of the General Information relatives as its officers and incorporators.74 In exchange for
Sheets that were regularly submitted to the Securities and agreeing to become presidents of the NGOs, both Suñas
Exchange Commission (SEC).69 This notebook was and Sula testified that Napoles promised to provide them
presented to the Sandiganbayan during the bail hearing.70 1% of the project cost as their commission.75
Sula also stated that the NGOs were created at the Similar to Suñas and Sula, Mary Arlene Joyce Baltazar
instance of Napoles. According to Sula, Napoles asked her (Baltazar), testified that Napoles likewise promised to give
and the other employees to come up with the names of her a commission in exchange for using her name as the
these NGOs. Upon Napoles’ approval of the name, Sula president of an NGO. As the former bookkeeper of Napoles,
reserved its use at the SEC. Sula also purchased forms for Baltazar further confirmed that Napoles used the names of
the articles of incorporation and bylaws of the NGOs, which her employees, and that of their friends and relatives to
she completed under the direction of Napoles. Napoles then make them appear as incorporators or officers of the
provided the amount necessary for the initial deposit to concerned NGOs.76 Once they became president of an NGO,
open a bank account in the name of the NGO. The bank Napoles instructed them to become voluntary members of
accounts were opened at either Metrobank or Landbank the Social Security System (SSS) and Philippine Health
because the branch managers were already familiar with Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth), because Napoles
Napoles, making it easy for Sula to facilitate the process. needed to terminate their employment.77 Baltazar stated
Thereafter, Sula registered the NGOs with the SEC.71 that this was purposely done in order to avoid any
Sula noted that Napoles selected the incorporators and connection between Napoles and the NGOs.78
officers of the NGOs. The incorporators and officers were
usually employees of Napoles, or the relatives of these _______________
employees. Sula testified that those chosen as presidents of
the NGO were aware that their names were used because 72 Id., at pp. 115-118.
they were 73 Id., at p. 126.
74 Id., at pp. 144-145, 198-199.
271
270
VOL. 844, NOVEMBER 7, 2017 271
Napoles vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division)
270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
As to the manner by which Napoles obtained the amount
Napoles vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division) allocated for the PDAF-funded projects, Sula narrated that
this was equally done through the employees of Napoles.
made to sign the incorporation documents. In cases where Whenever the DBM disbursed the allocated amount to the
the president was not an employee of Napoles, the implementing agency, a check was issued to the Napoles-
employee who provided the name of the NGO president controlled NGO. Since Sula and the other employees were
was made to sign in their stead.72 Sula likewise admitted to designated as presidents of these NGOs, they were
forging the signatures of the incorporators, or using the authorized to receive the check for the PDAF-funded
incorporators’ names without their knowledge.73 project from the implementing agency.79
Napoles had access to the bank accounts of the NGOs PDAF-funded projects of former Senator Enrile. However,
because as Sula, Luy, and Suñas testified during the bail her ties to the officers of the NGOs involved in this case
hearing, they were required to sign blank withdrawal slips, reveal otherwise. Napoles’ participation in the conspiracy
which were turned over to Napoles together with the was established through testimonial evidence, not only
corresponding passbook for these accounts.80 Thus, in the from one of her former employees, but from four (4)
ultimate scheme of things, Napoles received the amounts witnesses — all of whom corroborate each other on material
allocated for the PDAF-funded projects of former Senator points. More importantly, they testified on the minute
Enrile, which she later on apportioned according to the details of the scheme that only those privy to the conspiracy
agreed upon share of the legislators. would be able to provide. Notably, Napoles did not even
With respect to the actual delivery of the PDAF-funded refute their claims that they were her former employees,
projects to its intended beneficiaries, Sula, Luy, Suñas, and relying instead on singling out inconsequential details in
Baltazar admitted that they fabricated the liquidation their testimonies.
documents. This was done by forging the receipts and the Even the testimony of Ruby Chan Tuason, the
signatures of the beneficiaries, making it appear that the middleperson who received the rebates of former Senator
project was indeed implemented.81 Again, this supported Enrile on his behalf, confirmed that Napoles oversaw the
the findings of the COA Special Audit Team82 and the implementation of the scheme to divert the disbursements
FIO83 on the fictitious projects funded by the PDAF of of the PDAF. She personally met with Napoles to negotiate
former Senator Enrile. the respective shares of the conspirators, and received the
It is plain from the foregoing that Napoles and her co- amount on behalf of former Senator Enrile, which she
accused, as well as the former employees of Napoles who subsequently turned over to Reyes.84
were eventually admitted as State witnesses, had a Since the whistleblowers personally received
common design and objective — to divert the PDAF of instructions from Napoles to incorporate the NGOs,
former Senator Enrile from its lawful purpose and to their prepare the requirements for the release of the PDAF,
own personal accounts. prepare and deliver the rebates to the middlepersons, and
fabricate the liquidation documents, they were competent
_______________ witnesses on the subject of
79 Id., at p. 121.
_______________
80 Id., at pp. 126-129, 154, 179-180.
81 Id., at pp. 126, 139, 151-154, 160, 174, and 181. 84 Id., at pp. 250-254.
82 Id., at p. 80.
83 Id., at p. 106.
273
272
VOL. 844, NOVEMBER 7, 2017 273
Napoles vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division)
272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Napoles vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division) their respective testimonies.85 Clearly, the prosecution
witnesses and the documentary evidence supply interlocking
The individuals involved in this case performed pieces of information that when taken together, provide a
different criminal acts, which contributed, directly complete picture of the indispensability of the participation
or indirectly, in the amassing, accumulation, and of Napoles in the scheme to misappropriate public funds for
acquisition of ill-gotten wealth. Consistent with the the benefit of select individuals, by using the NGOs as
doctrine on implied conspiracy, these actions on the part of conduits for the PDAF projects of former Senator Enrile.
Napoles and her co-accused are sufficient to prove the The directions and instructions she gave to her former
existence of a “concurrence in sentiment,” regardless of any employees constitute a clear evidence of her active
proof that an actual agreement took place. participation, not mere acquiescence or presence, in the
Arguably, there is no documentary evidence directly conspiracy.
linking Napoles to the NGOs used as conduits for the
The Sandiganbayan may rely on the testimonies of the accomplices is admissible and competent. Yet such testimony
whistleblowers, especially since these were corroborated by comes from a “polluted source.” Consequently, it is scrutinized
other available evidence. with care. It is properly subject to grave suspicion. If not
Napoles nonetheless challenged the credibility of the corroborated, credibility is affected. Even then, however, the
whistleblowers, arguing that their testimonies should have defendant may be convicted upon the unsupported evidence of an
been received with “grave suspicion,” coming as they were accomplice. If corroborated absolutely or even to such an extent as
from “polluted source[s].”86 However, as this Court earlier is indicative of trustworthiness, the testimony of the accomplice is
discussed, the testimonies of these prosecution witnesses sufficient to warrant a conviction. This is true even if the
were consistent, clear, and corroborative of each other. accomplice has made previous statements inconsistent with his
Other testimonial and documentary evidence also testimony at the trial and such inconsistencies are satisfactorily
substantiated the veracity of the whistleblowers’ explained.
statements during the bail hearing. x x x x
In any case, a careful perusal of the assailed
Sandiganbayan Resolutions reveals that it considered the _______________
prosecution’s other testimonial and documentary evidence,
and discussed it in relation to one another. Among the 87 Id., at pp. 257-304, 343-372.
documents that the Sandiganbayan considered were the 88 United States v. Remigio, 37 Phil. 599 (1918); See also Salvanera v.
letters requesting for the People, 551 Phil. 147; 523 SCRA 147 (2007); People v. Ponce, 274 Phil.
1035; 197 SCRA 746 (1991).
_______________
85 RULES OF COURT, Rule 130, Section 36.
86 Rollo, p. 29.
275
VOL. 844, NOVEMBER 7, 2017 275
274 Napoles vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division)
274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Where conspiracy is in issue these principles are even more
certain. A conspiracy is more readily proved by the acts of a
Napoles vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division) fellow criminal than by any other method. If it is shown
that the statements of the conspirator are corroborated by
release of former Senator Enrile’s PDAF, the incorporation other evidence, then we have convincing proof of veracity.
documents of the NGOs, the liquidation documents for the Even if the confirmatory testimony only applies to some
PDAF-funded projects, the SAROs itself, and the DVs particulars, we can properly infer that the witness has told the
issued by the implementing agencies to the NGOs under truth in other respects.89 (Emphasis and underscoring Ours)
the control of Napoles.87
In other words, the Sandiganbayan did not rely solely
on the testimonies of the whistleblowers. Seeing as there At this point it should be emphasized that this Court is
were other available evidence lending credence to their not the proper forum to weigh the credibility of the
testimonies, the Sandiganbayan did not gravely abuse its prosecution witnesses. It is elementary that the factual
discretion when it considered the testimonies of the findings of the trial court, especially on the assessment or
whistleblowers in denying Napoles’ bail application, despite appreciation of the testimonies of witnesses, are accorded
their participation in the conspiracy itself. The mere fact great weight and respect.90 In this case, it is the
that the whistleblowers were conspirators themselves does Sandiganbayan that had the opportunity to observe the
not automatically render their testimonies incredible and deportment and behavior of the witnesses during the bail
unreliable. The ruling in United States v. Remigio88 is hearing. It was in a better position to pass judgment on the
instructive in this regard: credibility of these witnesses and the weight of their
respective testimonies. At any rate, Napoles was unable to
The true doctrine which should govern the testimony of establish any motive on the part of her former employees,
accomplices, or what may be variously termed principals, which would compel them to falsely testify against her and
confederates, or conspirators, is not in doubt. The evidence of her co-accused.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754506a0dd79050189003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 29/34 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754506a0dd79050189003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 30/34
10/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 844 10/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 844
the very survival of the people it governs over. Sereno (CJ.), Carpio, Peralta, Bersamin, Leonen, Tijam
Viewed in this context, no less heinous are the and Gesmundo, JJ., concur.
effects and repercussions of crimes like Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Del Castillo and
qualified bribery, destructive arson resulting in Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., On Official Leave.
death, and drug offenses involving government Jardeleza, Caguioa and Martires, JJ., No part.
officials, employees or officers, that their
perpetrators must not be allowed to cause Petition dismissed, resolutions affirmed.
further destruction and damage to society.92
(Emphasis in the original) Notes.—To discern the proper import of the phrase
raids on the public treasury, the key is to look at the
accompanying words: misappropriation, conversion, misuse
It is precisely the enormous gravity of this offense that or malversation of public funds. (Macapagal-Arroyo vs.
capital punishment is imposed on those who are found People, 797 SCRA 241 [2016])
guilty of Plunder. As a necessary consequence, provisional It has been long-settled that while the primary offender
liberty is not easily granted to those accused of this offense, in the aforesaid crimes are public officers, private
especially when the prosecution more than amply individuals may also be held liable for the same if they are
established that the evidence of guilt is strong. This is a found to have conspired with said officers in committing
matter of judicial discretion on the part of the trial court, the same. (Cambe vs. Office of the Ombudsman, 812 SCRA
which this Court may nullify only when the exercise of this 537 [2016])
discretion is tainted with arbitrariness and capriciousness
that the trial court failed to act within the contemplation of ——o0o——
law.
Unfortunately for Napoles, there is nothing in the
records showing that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused
its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It
has discharged its judicial duty in Napoles’ bail application
in a manner consistent with the applicable laws and
jurisprudence, and the evidence on record. Thus, all things © Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
considered, the Court finds no reason to nullify the assailed
Sandiganbayan Resolutions. The Petition for Bail of
Napoles was correctly denied.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is
DISMISSED. The Resolutions dated October 16, 2015 and
March 2, 2016 of the Sandiganbayan in SB-14-CRM-0238
are AF-
_______________
279