April 26, 2018, 12:39 am
Facebook iconTwitter iconYouTube iconGoogle+ icon
1 Philippine Peso = 0.07044 UAE Dirham
1 Philippine Peso = 2.01285 Albanian Lek
1 Philippine Peso = 0.03414 Neth Antilles Guilder
1 Philippine Peso = 0.3869 Argentine Peso
1 Philippine Peso = 0.02498 Australian Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.03414 Aruba Florin
1 Philippine Peso = 0.03836 Barbados Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 1.59992 Bangladesh Taka
1 Philippine Peso = 0.03047 Bulgarian Lev
1 Philippine Peso = 0.00723 Bahraini Dinar
1 Philippine Peso = 33.58228 Burundi Franc
1 Philippine Peso = 0.01918 Bermuda Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.025 Brunei Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.13157 Bolivian Boliviano
1 Philippine Peso = 0.06531 Brazilian Real
1 Philippine Peso = 0.01918 Bahamian Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 1.26103 Bhutan Ngultrum
1 Philippine Peso = 0.18432 Botswana Pula
1 Philippine Peso = 383.96625 Belarus Ruble
1 Philippine Peso = 0.03832 Belize Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.02447 Canadian Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.01871 Swiss Franc
1 Philippine Peso = 11.4346 Chilean Peso
1 Philippine Peso = 0.12071 Chinese Yuan
1 Philippine Peso = 52.91139 Colombian Peso
1 Philippine Peso = 10.76908 Costa Rica Colon
1 Philippine Peso = 0.01918 Cuban Peso
1 Philippine Peso = 1.72344 Cape Verde Escudo
1 Philippine Peso = 0.3961 Czech Koruna
1 Philippine Peso = 3.39145 Djibouti Franc
1 Philippine Peso = 0.1164 Danish Krone
1 Philippine Peso = 0.94764 Dominican Peso
1 Philippine Peso = 2.1869 Algerian Dinar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.24445 Estonian Kroon
1 Philippine Peso = 0.33832 Egyptian Pound
1 Philippine Peso = 0.52167 Ethiopian Birr
1 Philippine Peso = 0.01562 Euro
1 Philippine Peso = 0.03879 Fiji Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.01369 Falkland Islands Pound
1 Philippine Peso = 0.01368 British Pound
1 Philippine Peso = 0.08493 Ghanaian Cedi
1 Philippine Peso = 0.89893 Gambian Dalasi
1 Philippine Peso = 172.6122 Guinea Franc
1 Philippine Peso = 0.1407 Guatemala Quetzal
1 Philippine Peso = 3.94879 Guyana Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.15041 Hong Kong Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.4519 Honduras Lempira
1 Philippine Peso = 0.11558 Croatian Kuna
1 Philippine Peso = 1.23341 Haiti Gourde
1 Philippine Peso = 4.85501 Hungarian Forint
1 Philippine Peso = 266.4557 Indonesian Rupiah
1 Philippine Peso = 0.06754 Israeli Shekel
1 Philippine Peso = 1.26972 Indian Rupee
1 Philippine Peso = 22.70809 Iraqi Dinar
1 Philippine Peso = 805.52361 Iran Rial
1 Philippine Peso = 1.92079 Iceland Krona
1 Philippine Peso = 2.37438 Jamaican Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.01359 Jordanian Dinar
1 Philippine Peso = 2.06782 Japanese Yen
1 Philippine Peso = 1.91408 Kenyan Shilling
1 Philippine Peso = 1.31497 Kyrgyzstan Som
1 Philippine Peso = 76.83161 Cambodia Riel
1 Philippine Peso = 7.65286 Comoros Franc
1 Philippine Peso = 17.26122 North Korean Won
1 Philippine Peso = 20.47315 Korean Won
1 Philippine Peso = 0.00575 Kuwaiti Dinar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.01573 Cayman Islands Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 6.25738 Kazakhstan Tenge
1 Philippine Peso = 158.78405 Lao Kip
1 Philippine Peso = 28.8646 Lebanese Pound
1 Philippine Peso = 2.99962 Sri Lanka Rupee
1 Philippine Peso = 2.50441 Liberian Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.23188 Lesotho Loti
1 Philippine Peso = 0.05847 Lithuanian Lita
1 Philippine Peso = 0.0119 Latvian Lat
1 Philippine Peso = 0.02539 Libyan Dinar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.17621 Moroccan Dirham
1 Philippine Peso = 0.31433 Moldovan Leu
1 Philippine Peso = 0.95589 Macedonian Denar
1 Philippine Peso = 25.29728 Myanmar Kyat
1 Philippine Peso = 45.79977 Mongolian Tugrik
1 Philippine Peso = 0.15492 Macau Pataca
1 Philippine Peso = 6.75105 Mauritania Ougulya
1 Philippine Peso = 0.64212 Mauritius Rupee
1 Philippine Peso = 0.29862 Maldives Rufiyaa
1 Philippine Peso = 13.71883 Malawi Kwacha
1 Philippine Peso = 0.35542 Mexican Peso
1 Philippine Peso = 0.07476 Malaysian Ringgit
1 Philippine Peso = 0.23032 Namibian Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 6.88531 Nigerian Naira
1 Philippine Peso = 0.59455 Nicaragua Cordoba
1 Philippine Peso = 0.15025 Norwegian Krone
1 Philippine Peso = 2.02693 Nepalese Rupee
1 Philippine Peso = 0.02661 New Zealand Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.00738 Omani Rial
1 Philippine Peso = 0.01918 Panama Balboa
1 Philippine Peso = 0.06167 Peruvian Nuevo Sol
1 Philippine Peso = 0.06232 Papua New Guinea Kina
1 Philippine Peso = 1 Philippine Peso
1 Philippine Peso = 2.21711 Pakistani Rupee
1 Philippine Peso = 0.06525 Polish Zloty
1 Philippine Peso = 105.81128 Paraguayan Guarani
1 Philippine Peso = 0.06981 Qatar Rial
1 Philippine Peso = 0.07297 Romanian New Leu
1 Philippine Peso = 1.17426 Russian Rouble
1 Philippine Peso = 16.19889 Rwanda Franc
1 Philippine Peso = 0.07192 Saudi Arabian Riyal
1 Philippine Peso = 0.14921 Solomon Islands Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.25758 Seychelles Rupee
1 Philippine Peso = 0.34621 Sudanese Pound
1 Philippine Peso = 0.1621 Swedish Krona
1 Philippine Peso = 0.02526 Singapore Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.01369 St Helena Pound
1 Philippine Peso = 0.42589 Slovak Koruna
1 Philippine Peso = 146.33679 Sierra Leone Leone
1 Philippine Peso = 10.79785 Somali Shilling
1 Philippine Peso = 382.92676 Sao Tome Dobra
1 Philippine Peso = 0.16782 El Salvador Colon
1 Philippine Peso = 9.87687 Syrian Pound
1 Philippine Peso = 0.2317 Swaziland Lilageni
1 Philippine Peso = 0.60153 Thai Baht
1 Philippine Peso = 0.04709 Tunisian Dinar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.04287 Tongan paʻanga
1 Philippine Peso = 0.07793 Turkish Lira
1 Philippine Peso = 0.12937 Trinidad Tobago Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.56552 Taiwan Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 43.65171 Tanzanian Shilling
1 Philippine Peso = 0.50153 Ukraine Hryvnia
1 Philippine Peso = 70.73264 Ugandan Shilling
1 Philippine Peso = 0.01918 United States Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 0.54066 Uruguayan New Peso
1 Philippine Peso = 154.48792 Uzbekistan Sum
1 Philippine Peso = 1138.30075 Venezuelan Bolivar
1 Philippine Peso = 436.67051 Vietnam Dong
1 Philippine Peso = 2.02071 Vanuatu Vatu
1 Philippine Peso = 0.04846 Samoa Tala
1 Philippine Peso = 10.24242 CFA Franc (BEAC)
1 Philippine Peso = 0.05178 East Caribbean Dollar
1 Philippine Peso = 10.24242 CFA Franc (BCEAO)
1 Philippine Peso = 1.85386 Pacific Franc
1 Philippine Peso = 4.79287 Yemen Riyal
1 Philippine Peso = 0.23169 South African Rand
1 Philippine Peso = 99.53011 Zambian Kwacha
1 Philippine Peso = 6.94093 Zimbabwe dollar

SC vs SolGen on Napoles case: Luy ‘actually deprived of liberty’

By Malou Mangahas

Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism

AT A press conference on Wednesday in response to a PCIJ report on his office’s manifestation recommending the acquittal of “pork-barrel queen” Janet Lim Napoles in the serious illegal detention of whistleblower Benhur Luy, Solicitor General Jose C. Calida noted that his position assigns him the circumstance of serving as the 16th member of the Supreme Court. 

He also defended submitting the manifestation – dated Jan. 11, 2017 and received by the 13th Division of the Court of Appeals on Jan. 20, 2017 – in part by saying that “when we look at the evidence, the transcript of records, there are many glaring instances which will support the acquittal of the accused.”

But the manifestation digresses from how the body that Calida says he is the 16th member of has evaluated and ruled on precisely the same case.

Six months earlier, on July 13, 2016, the Second Division of the Supreme Court had denied the “Petition for Review on Certiorari with Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction filed by petitioner Janet Lim Napoles.”

The decision noted that the petition had “(assailed) the Court of Appeals Decision dated March 26, 2014 and Resolution dated July 8, 2014, which found no grave abuse of discretion in the filing of an information for serious illegal detention against (Napoles) and the subsequent issuance of a warrant for her arrest.”

But among the high court’s conclusions was that “Napoles has been found guilty of serious illegal detention with proof beyond reasonable doubt, a quantum of evidence higher than probable cause. Resolving whether there was probable cause in the filing of information before the trial court and in the issuance of an arrest warrant would be ‘of no practical use and value’.”

Associate Justice Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen penned the decision. Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio (chairperson of the Second Division), Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion, and Associate Justice Mariano C. del Castillo concurred. Associate Justice Jose C. Mendoza was on official leave.

Under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure/Rules of Court adopted by the Supreme Court, a Petition for Certiorari may be filed “when any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.”

Napoles had named the following as respondents in her petition: “Hon. Secretary Leila De Lima, Prosecutor General Claro Arellano, And Senior Deputy State Prosecutor Theodore M. Villanueva, In Their Capacities As Officers Of The Department Of Justice; Hon. Elmo M. Alameda, In His Capacity As Presiding Judge Of The Regional Trial Court Of Makati, Branch 150, National Bureau Of Investigation (NBI); Arturo F. Luy, Gertrudes K. Luy, Annabelle Luy-Reario, and Benhur K. Luy.”

The petition for certiorari was not the first that Napoles had filed with the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. She had filed at least two such petitions previously for the same case. 

Then last September, Napoles’s lawyers filed a “reply brief” in which “the appellant reiterated her argument that the essential element of deprivation of liberty is absent and wanting in this case.” 

This apparently led to the OSG’s recent manifestation that has caught many people – including officials in the executive and judicial branches -- by surprise. 

At the Wednesday press conference, Solicitor General Calida said that, “it is my well-considered opinion and that of my assistants that the RTC (Makati Regional Trial Court Branch 150) erred in convicting Napoles.”

The OSG had furnished the Makati RTC and the lawyers of Napoles a copy of its January 2017 manifestation, but not the lawyers of Benhur Luy.

According to Calida, Luy’s behavior during his three-month alleged detention by Napoles at the retreat house run by priests close to Napoles, and at the Napoles family residence “belies the fact that he was actually detained or deprived of his liberty.” 

“With facts like these,” he said, “can you in conscience say that she (Napoles) should be convicted for the crime of serious illegal detention?” 

In Calida’s mind, Napoles had become “a victim of injustice” and that “it is very unfair if Janet Napoles will suffer incarceration for life for a crime she did not commit. That is a travesty of justice which my office cannot countenance.”

Yet, the same matters that seemingly still bother the Solicitor General had already been discussed and reviewed at length by the Supreme Court’s second division last July. After examination of the records of the case, the high court ended up denying Napoles’s petition for certiorari, issuing a 16-page ruling.

On the matter of “whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding no grave abuse of discretion: first, in filing an information for serious illegal detention against Napoles; and, second, in the issuance of a warrant for her arrest,” the Supreme Court decision stated: 

• “This Petition must be denied for being moot and academic. In any case, the Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari. There was no grave abuse of discretion either in the filing of information in court or in the issuance of the arrest warrant against Napoles.”

On the filing of the serious illegal detention case against Napoles, the Supreme Court decision stated:

• “There was no grave abuse of discretion in the filing of Information against Napoles. The Review Resolution sufficiently explained that during the preliminary investigation stage, there was probable cause to believe that Napoles and Lim, her brother, illegally deprived Benhur Luy of his liberty:

• “[T]he undersigned hereby rules that there is probable cause that respondents committed the crime of Serious Illegal Detention and should be held for trial. Relative thereto, it should be noted that the crime of Serious Illegal Detention has the following elements:

• “the offender is a private individual;

• “he kidnaps or detains another or in any other manner deprives the latter of his liberty;

• “the act of detention or kidnapping is illegal; and 

• “in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances are present: (a) the kidnapping or detention lasts more than 3 days; or (b) it is committed by simulating public authority; or (c) any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made; or (d) the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, or a public officer.

• “Relative to the instant case, there is no question regarding the first element, as both respondents are private individuals. There is no allegation to the contrary that respondents [Reynald] Lim and Janet Lim Napoles are private indiv[i]duals.

• “The issue in this case actually revolves around the second element of the crime, which is the question of whether complainant Benhur Luy was actually deprived of his liberty....”

On whether Benhur Luy “was actually deprived of his liberty,” the Supreme Court decision stated:

• “It appears that there is sufficient evidence to establish that complainant Benhur Luy was actually deprived of his liberty.

• “First of all, it is an undisputed fact that complainant Benhur Luy executed an affidavit which detailed the deprivation of his liberty. His elaboration of the deprivation of his liberty should be given weight vis-a-vis the allegations of respondents....

• “Second, the undersigned also finds the claim that complainant Benhur Luy went on a “spiritual retreat” at Bahay (ni) San Jose as contrary to human nature (to say the least). The records would show that respondent Janet Lim Napoles was extremely mad at complainant Benhur Luy for obtaining unauthorized loans in her behalf. With the anger of respondent Janet Lim Napoles, the undersigned finds it difficult to believe that complainant Benhur Luy would choose to have a spiritual retreat with priests that are closely associated with respondent Janet Lim Napoles. Why would complainant Benhur Luy choose to stay in an establishment that has close ties with respondent Janet Lim Napoles if the latter was already hell bent on filing a criminal case against him?

• “Sixth, an examination of the facts and circumstances of the instant case leads us to conclude that respondents had motive to deprive complainant Benhur Luy of his liberty. Respondent Janet Lim Napoles averred that she discovered that complainant Benhur Luy illegally obtained two (2) loans in her behalf. This, in turn, angered respondent Janet Lim Napoles, and the latter even threatened to file a criminal case against him.

• “However, complainant Benhur Luy’s alleged knowledge of the anomalous transactions of JLN Group of Companies would place respondent Janet Lim Napoles in a compromising position. If complainant Benhur Luy is sued, then the latter would not have any choice but to reveal his knowledge on the involvement of JLN in the PDAF (Priority Development Assistance Fund or pork barrel), Malampaya, and the Fertilizer scams. To avoid this, respondents restrained his liberty, thereupon forcing complainant Benhur Luy’s silence.

• “Obviously, fishing into the motives of the perpetrators of this crime is an ardent task. However, the undersigned finds that the above-captioned proposition makes more sense than the one proffered by respondents. While the undersigned does not deny that there is evidence that complainant Benhur Luy committed the crime of qualified theft, their defense that he went on a spiritual retreat, [i]n a house with close ties with respondent Janet Lim Napoles, is simply unfathomable to believe.

• “Moreover, even if the alleged knowledge of complainant Benhur Luy on the anomalies involving JLN group of companies is disregarded, it is still logical to conclude that the qualified theft committed by the latter created a motive on the part of respondents to detain him.

• “With regard to the third element, and considering our above conclusion, it is crystal clear that the act of depriving Benhur Luy’s liberty is illegal. Both respondents had no authority and/or justifiable reason to detain and deprive complainant Benhur Luy of his liberty.

• “As to the fourth element, it is undisputed that complainant Benhur Luy was deprived of his liberty for more than three (3) days. In fact, it lasted for months starting December 2012 up to March 2013, when complainant Benhur Luy was rescued by the NBI.

• “Lastly, with regard to the participation of respondent Janet Lim Napoles, it is evident that she was greatly involved in the deprivation of liberty of complainant Benhur Luy. The statements made by Merlita Sunas and Maria Flor Villanueva clearly manifest respondent Janet Lim Napoles’s knowledge of the crime.

• “Moreover, Benhur Luy’s detention at Bahay (ni) San Jose, which has close ties with respondent Janet Lim Napoles, is indicative that she had personal knowledge of what was happening. As earlier ruled, it would be highly illogical for Benhur Luy to have his retreat in a house that has very close ties to Janet Napoles. In our mind, complainant Benhur Luy’s confinement at Bahay (ni) San Jose was caused by respondent Janet Lim Napoles.

• “The most damning link between the crime and respondent Janet Lim Napoles is the motive behind complainant Benhur Luy’s deprivation of liberty. Consistent with our earlier finding that the deprivation was undertaken in order to prevent complainant Benhur Luy from divulging information on JLN group of companies’ involvement in the Fertilizer Fund, Malampaya, and PDAF scams, it is clear that respondent Janet Lim Napoles authored and/or orchestrated this unlawful three (3) month detention.

• “It is true that the Review Resolution reversed the initial finding of lack of probable cause against Napoles and Lim. However, this in itself does not show grave abuse of discretion.

• “The very purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to give the prosecutor a chance to correct any errors that he or she may have committed in issuing the resolution ordering the filing of an information in court or dismissing the complaint. “Reception of new evidence is not within the office of a Motion for Reconsideration.” A reversal may result if a piece of evidence that might have yielded a different resolution was inadvertently overlooked.

• “In initially dismissing the criminal complaint filed by Benhur Luy’s family, the prosecutor disregarded the purported motive behind Benhur Luy’s detention. According to the initial Resolution, whether Napoles and Lim detained Benhur Luy to prevent him from exposing the anomalous transactions of the JLN Group of Companies involving the Priority Development Assistance Fund would spawn an entirely different proceeding; hence, the issue is irrelevant in the proceedings involving the serious illegal detention charge.

• “Although motive is not an element of a crime, it is a “prospectant circumstantial evidence” that may help establish intent. In this case, the Review Resolution sufficiently explained why it was “contrary to human nature” for Benhur Luy to go on a three (3)-month spiritual retreat with priests that have close ties with Napoles; and, instead, BenhurLuy had been detained at Bahay ni San Jose, transferred from place to place until he was rescued in Pacific Plaza because he knew first-hand of Napoles’s involvement in the pork barrel scam.”

On whether Makati RTC 150 Presiding Judge Elmo M. Alameda committed grave abuse of discretion when he issued a warrant of arrest for Napoles, the Supreme Court decision stated:

• “Neither was there grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of the arrest warrant against Napoles. That Judge Alameda issued the arrest warrant within the day he received the records of the case from the prosecutor does not mean that the warrant was hastily issued. ‘Speed in the conduct of proceedings by a judicial or quasi-judicial officer cannot per se be instantly attributed to an injudicious performance of functions. For one’s prompt dispatch may be another’s undue haste.’ – PCIJ. February 2017
Category: 
Rating: 
No votes yet

Column of the Day

Facebook + Vera Files + Rappler = Truth?

By DAHLI ASPILLERA | April 25,2018
‘Vera Files and Rappler’s claim to glory--their membership in The Poynter, an alcohol industry-funded journalism institute. Some conflict of mores and ethos!’

Opinion of the Day

A lawyer-blogger’s view on the quo warranto petition vs Sereno (2)

By ELLEN TORDESILLAS | April 25, 2018
‘This shortcut will yield greater mischief than the good that irregular removal seeks to achieve.’