Sandiganbayan clears Bolante of plunder charges
The Sandiganbayan cleared a former agriculture undersecretary who was behind a P723 million fertilizer fund scam, on plunder charges after government prosecutors lacked evidence that would pin him down.
In a decision promulgated on November 28 but announced Monday, the Sandiganbayan Special 2 nd Division said although Jocelyn Bolante was the “central key player” of this scam, “no material representation, other than the release of the funds, could be shown attributable to accused Bolante."
The Sandiganbayan decision came three months after the court allowed prosecutors to amend the charge sheet where Jose Barredo, the alleged whistle blower, was admitted as a witness for the prosecution.
"All that is essentially stated by Barredo is the modus operandi of the scam, the persons who were offered, or had received, and how the 'SOP' (Standard Operating Procedure) or commissions were distributed," the ruling read.
"However, the personalities mentioned by Barredo as the recipients of the 'SOP' or commissions are either local officials who had fund allotments from the DA or DA regional directors, and none of them are even charged in this case as co-conspirators of Bolante or of the other accused."
“The motions for reconsiderations insofar as the admission of the amended information are concerned are hereby denied for lack of merit,” the court ruled.
The case took nearly 12 years to resolve since Senator Panfilo Lacson Jr revealed the scam in 2014. Lacson alleged then President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo drew money from to buy votes in the 2004 elections where she retained the presidency.
Lacson’s allegations led to a Senate investigation that led the Upper House to file charges against Bolante. The Office of the Ombudsman filed plunder charges against Bolante, too. State prosecutors has accused Bolante of getting P265.642 million from the P723 million fertilizer funds. .
But in 2014, the Sandiganbayan issued a resolution saying prosecutors lacked enough evidence to prove Bolante could be tried for plunder. But the Ombudsman appealed and the court was allowed to give them to boost their case. DMS
