BIG TROUBLE IN NAPOLES PLUNDER CASE!

I hate to say this but this early, I see BIG TROUBLE in the government’s plunder case against Janet Napoles, Senators Juan Ponce Enrile, Ramon Revilla Jr, Jinggoy Estrada and their co-accused.

And for the record, this is NOT IN DEFENSE of the accused. This is a PERSONAL ALARM I’m ringing against what I had written in my preceding blog as a MONUMENTAL WASTE of resources for a massive publicity stunt.

The whistleblowers’ lawyer, Levito Baligod, said the pieces of evidence include special allotment release orders (SARO), memorandums of agreement, notices of cash allocations, legislators' endorsement letters, project proposals, receipts, and disbursement vouchers.

I’m not a lawyer but I will dare say that I can’t imagine how these kinds of evidence will prove BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT a key element of plunder – the accused POCKETTED part of the proceeds of the transaction, or had gained personally from it.

Think about these, people:

SAROs and notices of cash allocations DO NOT INDICATE that the senator or congressman concerned gets a commission from it.

The same thing applies to letters of endorsement by legislators, disbursement vouchers, project proposals and memorandums of agreement. It’s also not illegal to write an endorsement letter.

So I can’t help but worry this early about HOW can the supposed commissions or kickbacks of the accused senators being heralded by Justice Sec. Leila de Lima be proven.

Remember, guys, our laws convict suspects on INDISPUTABLE PHYSICAL PROOF. And not just ON THE WORDS of witnesses.

A lot of the non-government organizations linked to Napoles and the scam have turned out to be bogus, yes. But still, this doesn’t prove that the accused legislators ILLEGALLY EARNED COMMISSIONS from funds released to them

Even if the evidence is indeed 175,000 pages thick as claimed by Baligod, it would be WORTHLESS if it can’t prove that the accused pocketted part of the proceeds from the pork barrel scam..

Which leads me to my other concern.

The Napoles exposes began some two months ago (anybody correct me if I’m wrong). And there have been COUNTLESS TIMES wherein both De Lima and Malacanang repeatedly said cases will be filed only when the evidence is strong enough for a conviction.

So it would be interesting to find out HOW did De Lima and her people, like the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), evaluate 175,000 PAGES of evidence and concluded that these are strong enough in just two months more or less.

Two months is approximately 60 days. That would mean an average of 2,000 plus pages a day.

Can anybody or any agency REALLY EVALUATE EVIDENCE THAT FAST?

No question about it, 175,000 pages of evidence is sweet music to the ears. But keep in mind people, the bottom line is are these USEFUL FOR THE CASE.

I have at least two more upcoming blogs on the Napoles plunder case. 30