Thread by @mikenavallo

JINGGOY ACQUITTAL

Impt to note that while both Sen. Jinggoy Estrada and Janet Lim Napoles were acquitted of plunder over PDAF scam, they were also convicted of lesser crimes.

Estrada - 12 yrs, 8 mos - 16 yrs, 5 mos, 10 days
Napoles - 44 yrs, 8 mos - 62 yrs, 10 mos, 20 days

Estrada:
1 count of direct bribery (8 yrs - 9 yrs, 4 mos)
2 counts indirect bribery (2 yrs, 4 mos - 3 yrs, 6 months, 20 days EACH count)
fined P3M
suspended from public office
perpetual special disqualification from voting

Napoles:
5 counts of corruption of public officials (8 yrs - 10 yrs, 8 mos EACH count)
2 counts of corruption of public officials (2 yrs, 4 mos - 4 yrs, 9 mos, 10 days EACH count)
fined P29.625M
ordered to indemnify PH govt P262M with interest

Why was Sen. Jinggoy acquitted of plunder?

In 396-page ruling, Sandiganbayan 5th Division says Estrada's mere act of signing endorsement letters not enough to support finding of liability for plunder. Says Estrada only negligent in monitoring PDAF; someone else diverted funds.

SB: "Endorsement per se is not criminal. Endorsement of PDAF is not among those enumerated under Section 1(d) of the Plunder Law."

Estrada denied signing endorsements but SB said he failed to prove forgery.

Sen. Bong Revilla was acquitted of plunder due to forged signatures.

SB notes prosecution failed to prove that Estrada received the funds or that these funds came from his PDAF.

What to make of endorsements to NGOs?

SB says these are "informal practices" which although declared unconstitutional are not considered criminal if there's no evidence these were done "in furtherance of a criminal activity or scheme."

SB says Jinggoy had no had in bogus NGOs

In plunder, SB says that even if a public officer amassed, accumulated and acquired ill-gotten wealth of more than P50M, prosecution still has to prove the element of "combination or series of overt criminal acts."

SB: "...Court fails to see concrete evidence that Estrada personally gained or benefited or had used the monies allegedly taken from the alleged transactions that were recorded in Luy's summary of rebates in the amount of P50 million or more."

SB also says P50 million threshold for plunder was not met. Only P36M out of alleged P183M was found by AMLC to have been deposited in Estrada's bank accounts.

SB also cites AMLC finding that if could not see connection between financial activities and PDAF.

After examining transactions under whistleblower Benhur Luy's summary of rebates, SB concludes these transactions could not be traced to a specific SARO (special allotment release order), which means the lawmaker who endorsed the release of PDAF cannot be determined.

In sum, SB says prosecution was only able to prove P9.875M worth of transactions, which is way below the P50-M threshold for plunder. The remaining P180.9M? These were deemed excluded transactions.

Applying the variance rule, SB convicted Estrada of lesser crimes of direct bribery and indirect bribery and Napoles of corruption of public officials.

Under the variance rule, a conviction is possible if elements of crime charged are also elements of other crimes.

Estrada was convicted of bribery because it was established he received P1M in bribe money.

For indirect bribery, SB says he also received P1.5M and P4.2 from Napoles through Ruby Tuason.

Here's how SB found Napoles liable for a total of 7 counts of corruption of public officials for giving bribes to Estrada.

Estrada's then-chief of staff, Pauline Therese Mary Labayen, has remained at-large.

SB found she received kickbacks or commissions not only for Estrada but also for herself.

One of Estrada's arguments was that he could not be held liable for Labayen's act of diverting PDAF.