A report on GMA News’ Balitanghali speculated that it seemed unlikely.
In Singson’s case, he testified before the Sandiganbayan that he had delivered a P130 million bribe to Estrada.
The Ilocos governor managed to avoid prosecution along with Estrada because of former President Ferdinand Marcos’ Presidential Decree 749, which grants “immunity from prosecution to givers of bribes and other gifts and to their accomplices in bribery and other graft cases against public officers.”
Atty. Raymund Fortun, Estrada’s lawyer in the plunder case, believes Napoles cannot invoke P.D. 749. “Dito sa kaso ni Janet Napoles, lumalabas na hindi bribery ang nangyari dito. Ang nangyari dito ay komisyon,” said Fortun.
He added, “Si Chavit ay witness umpisang-umpisa pa lamang. Dito sa kaso ni Janet Napoles, malinaw na malinaw na siya ay kinasuhan.”
Former state prosecutor Atty. Dennis Villaignacio, who prosecuted Estrada in the plunder case, also said that it was unlikely Napoles would be given immunity.
Villaignacio said the best recourse for Napoles was to admit to a lesser crime, and testify against politicians involved in the pork scam. “In terms of sino, kanino ang mas mabigat ang kasalanan, ‘yung public official na nag-betray ng public trust ng mga tao at kinuha ‘yung public funds,” said Villaignacio.
Meanwhile, Atty. Rowena Daroy-Morales of the University of the Philippines’ College of Law said that though Napoles’ possible testimony could reveal who were involved in the pork scam, it would have to be verified.
“Pag may sinabi si Napoles, pagisipan natin mabuti kung paniniwalaan o hindi,” Morales advised. — Rie Takumi/DVM, GMA News
