Plaza said the cases were based on mere “hearsay”.
He said the charges lacked evidence apart from the testimony of pork barrel scam primary whistleblower Benhur Luy.
“Movant Plaza respectfully submits that his inclusion in these cases is erroneous and that movant is implicated only in these instant cases on inadmissible evidence,” Plaza said in his motion filed on February 9 but only made available to the media on Friday.
Plaza was among the second batch of lawmakers charged by the Office of the Ombudsman before the Sandiganbayan earlier this month for their alleged involvement in the pork scam.
Filed against Plaza were five counts of graft, five counts of malversation and two counts of direct bribery for allegedly funnelling, from 2004 to 2010, his Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or pork barrel to fake non-government organizations (NGOs) allegedly owned by Janet Lim-Napoles in exchange for commissions or kickbacks amounting P42.1 million.
Plaza, in his motion, however, said that all the cases filed against him were just anchored on Luy’s testimony and not backed up by any other evidence.
Luy in his sworn statement identified Plaza as among the lawmakers who used to visit Napoles in her office at JLN Corporation in Ortigas, Pasig, and attended parties organized by the alleged pork barrel scam mastermind. Luy said he also used to hear Napoles talking to Plaza over the phone.
Luy also testified that Plaza’s name also appeared several times in his record of lawmakers who were transacting with Napoles and her alleged NGOs.
“Bukod sa nakikita ko sila sa opisina ng JLN Corporation o sa mga parties ni Madame Janet Lim-Napoles o madalas kausap sa telepono, ay sila rin lagi ang nasa records ko na pinag bibigyan ng pera ni Madame Janet Lim Napoles,” a part of Luy’s stament read.
Plaza said that assuming that the testimony of Luy was true, it did not prove that the latter conspired with Napoles in connection with the pork scam.
“As stated by the Supreme Court, probable cause demands more than suspicion… It does not prove that respondent, Plaza being seen on the parties or office of Janet Lim Napoles was involved in the alleged scheme narrated by Luy,” Plaza said in his motion.
“If that will be the case, then every person seen at the office or parties of Janet Lim-Napoles, or every person having conversation withJ anet Lim Napoles over the telephone should be a suspect,” he added.
Plaza also pointed out that the allegation that his name appeared in Luy’s record of lawmakers who received money from Napoles should not be used as basis for concluding that he misused and pocketed government funds.
Hearsay statement
“The hearsay statement by Luy that respondent Plaza was in his records of who receives certain amount of money from Janet Lim-Napoles should not immediately be a basis that Plaza committed the crimes together with Napoles. It must be considered that, assuming the allegations were true, the said money was received from Napoles and not from the government,” Plaza said.
Plaza also assailed the Ombudsman’s resolution that there is probable cause that Plaza may have committed graft crime by allegedly endorsing Napoles-linked NGOs as partner in implementing the projects funded by his PDAF, as such allegation was based solely on Luy’s testimony.
“There was also no evidence or proof regarding respondent Plaza’s alleged participation in the preparation and execution of alleged MOAs (memorandum of agreement) with NGOs and IAs (implementing agencies) and recommended to the IAs the release of funds to said Napoles-controlled NGOs. Nothing supports these allegations but merely the statement of witness Luy,” Plaza said.
Also attached in his motion, is a separate plea, that if the Second Division might find probable cause to try him for the cases filed by the Ombudsman, his bail bonds for all the cases be reduced to P90,000 from the required P390.
“Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed of this honourable court that after due consideration and evaluation of the facts on record… issue an order denying the issuance of a warrant of arrest and dismissing the instant case as against movant Rodolfo Plaza or in the alternative, the accused may be allowed to post a reduced bail for his provisional liberty,” Plaza said.
The bail for each count of malversation costs P40,000, while bail for each count of graft costs P30,000 and for each count of direct bribery P20,000.
However, in his plea, Plaza prayed that he be allowed to post just P40,000 for his five counts of malversation, P30,000 for his five counts of graft and P20,000 for his two counts of direct bribery or a total of P90,000.
“The purpose of bail is to relieve an accused from imprisonment until his conviction and yet to secure his appearance at the trial,” the motion read.
“Accused need not be burdened for the whole amount of bail considering that his appearance in one case is the appearance in all other counts of each charge every trial. Hence, by allowing the accused to post one bail bond for all similar counts will serve the purpose of the right to bail of the accused,” the motion added.
The Second Division on Friday gave the prosecution 15 days to comment on Plaza’s motion. Meanwhile, the defense, upon the receipt of the prosecution’s comment, was give 10 days to reply, after which, the motion is deemed submitted for resolution. —NB, GMA News
