For insufficiency
of evidence, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales
dismissed the
criminal charges against former President and incumbent
Representative
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (GMA) and six other respondents
who allegedly, in
conspiracy, committed bribery under Articles 210 and 211
of the Revised
Penal Code and violated Section 3 (a) and (e) of Republic Act
No. 3019 or the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act during the May 2004
elections in Lanao
Del Norte, Lanao del Sur, Tawi-Tawi, Sultan Kudarat, and
Cotabato City.
The case stemmed
from the complaint filed in August 2011 by
Pacasirang
Batidor, Ahmare Balt Lucman, Hadji Rashid Limbona and
Hadji Abdullah D.
Dalidig against GMA, former Commission on Elections
(COMELEC)
Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano, former Civil Aviation
Authority of the
Philippines (CAAP) Director General and former former
Philippine Ports
Authority (PPA) General Manger Alfonso Cusi, PPA
Manager Efren
Bollozos, former Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary Agnes
Devanadera, former
Shariah Circuit Court Judge Nagamura Moner, and former
First Gentleman Jose
Miguel Arroyo.
The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the respondents,
during the 2004
May elections in the identified Mindanao areas, provided
transportation
through the grant of 12 multi-cab vehicles and the use of a
helicopter, and
distributed envelopes containing money to unidentified election
officers, in
perpetuation of the alleged electoral fraud.
In the 43-page
Resolution approved on May 25, 2012, the Ombudsman
found the evidence
insufficient since “the complaint contains bare allegations
and pieces of
evidence that are unsubscribed, unauthenticated and recanted
affidavits or
statements” which cannot engender a well-founded belief that the
crimes have been
committed and that the accused are probably guilty thereof
and should stand
trial.
On the allegation
of bribery, the Resolution stated that “in bribery, it
is essential that
the recipient of the bribe is a public officer. Hence before a
prosecutor can
declare that there is probable cause for said felony, there should
be proof or
showing that the recipient is indeed a public officer. In the present
case, nothing of
that sort appears. In fact, as already intimated, the supposed
recipients of the
bribe were not named or sufficiently identified.”
The Resolution
stated that “for conspiracy to exist, two or more persons
must come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
decide to commit
it.” It explained that the same degree of proof required for
establishing the
crime is likewise required to support a finding of conspiracy,
hence, conspiracy
must never be presumed.
No comments:
Post a Comment