Sandiganbayan denies Napoles' motion for reconsideration on PDAF case
ADVERTISEMENT

Welcome, Kapamilya! We use cookies to improve your browsing experience. Continuing to use this site means you agree to our use of cookies. Tell me more!
Sandiganbayan denies Napoles' motion for reconsideration on PDAF case
MANILA — The Sandiganbayan Special Fifth Division dismissed the motion for reconsideration of Janet Lim Napoles, known as the "PDAF queen," while partially granting the motion for partial reconsideration of former Association of Philippine Electric Cooperatives (APEC) Party-List Representative Edgar Valdez.
MANILA — The Sandiganbayan Special Fifth Division dismissed the motion for reconsideration of Janet Lim Napoles, known as the "PDAF queen," while partially granting the motion for partial reconsideration of former Association of Philippine Electric Cooperatives (APEC) Party-List Representative Edgar Valdez.
This is related to the October 2, 2023 decision of the anti-graft court that dismissed the plunder case against Valdez and Lim but found them guilty of 9 counts of direct bribery, with each count carrying a sentence of up to 6 years of imprisonment and a fine of P26,996,700 per count.
This is related to the October 2, 2023 decision of the anti-graft court that dismissed the plunder case against Valdez and Lim but found them guilty of 9 counts of direct bribery, with each count carrying a sentence of up to 6 years of imprisonment and a fine of P26,996,700 per count.
Meanwhile, Napoles was found guilty of 9 counts of corruption of a public official and sentenced to up to 6 years of imprisonment for each count. She was also fined P26,996,700.
Meanwhile, Napoles was found guilty of 9 counts of corruption of a public official and sentenced to up to 6 years of imprisonment for each count. She was also fined P26,996,700.
The case remains archived as another accused, John Raymund de Asis, has yet to surface.
The case remains archived as another accused, John Raymund de Asis, has yet to surface.
ADVERTISEMENT
In their respective motions, Valdez claimed that the court violated his constitutional rights, arguing that the court abused the use of the "variance rule" and that he could not be acquitted of plunder but at the same time convicted of bribery.
In their respective motions, Valdez claimed that the court violated his constitutional rights, arguing that the court abused the use of the "variance rule" and that he could not be acquitted of plunder but at the same time convicted of bribery.
He also said that the prosecution lacked testimonial and documentary evidence against him, claiming there was no basis for his conviction as government agencies found no probable cause and no information on direct bribery was filed against him.
He also said that the prosecution lacked testimonial and documentary evidence against him, claiming there was no basis for his conviction as government agencies found no probable cause and no information on direct bribery was filed against him.
Valdez also argued that the transactions cited in the court's decision should have been excluded in determining his guilt. He maintained that he was merely doing his job and that the court did not prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Valdez also argued that the transactions cited in the court's decision should have been excluded in determining his guilt. He maintained that he was merely doing his job and that the court did not prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
On the other hand, Napoles argued that the variance rule should not be applied to her case, especially since the information on the case did not include corruption of public officials.
On the other hand, Napoles argued that the variance rule should not be applied to her case, especially since the information on the case did not include corruption of public officials.
However, the court found that Valdez conspired with Napoles based on documents such as endorsement letters and a memorandum of agreement with Napoles' non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
However, the court found that Valdez conspired with Napoles based on documents such as endorsement letters and a memorandum of agreement with Napoles' non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
ADVERTISEMENT
The court said that Valdez received commissions or kickbacks from 2007 to 2009 and that the money was either received personally or through bank transfers to his and his wife's accounts.
The court said that Valdez received commissions or kickbacks from 2007 to 2009 and that the money was either received personally or through bank transfers to his and his wife's accounts.
It was also proven that P79,040,000 went to Napoles' bogus NGOs from 2007 to 2009.
It was also proven that P79,040,000 went to Napoles' bogus NGOs from 2007 to 2009.
Based on the decision of the special division, Napoles' motion for reconsideration was denied, and she was ordered to pay a civil liability of P79,040,000 plus 6 percent interest per year.
Based on the decision of the special division, Napoles' motion for reconsideration was denied, and she was ordered to pay a civil liability of P79,040,000 plus 6 percent interest per year.
Valdez's motion was partially granted regarding a transaction involving P1,000,000 deposited to his wife's Metrobank account in February 2007, which was deducted from his total penalty. As a result, the fine for Valdez and Napoles was reduced to P23,996,700.
Valdez's motion was partially granted regarding a transaction involving P1,000,000 deposited to his wife's Metrobank account in February 2007, which was deducted from his total penalty. As a result, the fine for Valdez and Napoles was reduced to P23,996,700.
Justice Maria Theresa Mendoza-Arcega issued a dissenting opinion favoring the motion for reconsideration of Napoles and Valdez.
Justice Maria Theresa Mendoza-Arcega issued a dissenting opinion favoring the motion for reconsideration of Napoles and Valdez.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT