Gigi Reyes appeals to graft court anew on plunder case
JESSICA LUCILA “GIGI” G. REYES, former chief of staff of former Senator Juan F. Ponce-Enrile, has asked the Sandiganbayan to reverse its earlier ruling denying her bid to junk her P172.83-million plunder case in connection with the pork barrel scam.
In 69-page motion for reconsideration, Ms. Reyes said the Sandiganbayan Third Division was “mistaken” when it ruled that the charge sheet against her is valid when the Supreme Court (SC) granted her motion for a bill of particulars in August 2015.
According to Ms. Reyes’s motion, her plunder case cannot be deemed valid as the explanation of the SC in August 2015 granting the motion for a bill of particulars “should not be taken as categorical and jurisprudential findings by the Court on the validity of the Information filed against accused Enrile, accused Reyes and their co-accused.”
Ms. Reyes added that the SC’s “elucidations” were mere “obiter dicta” or incidental remarks “to guide the bench and the bar on the distinguishing features between a motion to quash and motion for a bill of particulars.”
Ms. Reyes’s co-respondents in the plunder case are Mr. Enrile and alleged pork barrel-scam mastermind Janet Lim-Napoles.
“What is clear from the decision in Enrile v. People is that the Supreme Court found the Information to be glaringly vague, ambiguous and insufficient. What is also clear is that the Supreme Court gave the Prosecution the opportunity to cure the defects in the Information via the submission of a Bill of Particulars containing necessary facts specified by the Supreme Court. However, the Prosecution still failed to cure the fatal defects of the Information,” the motion read.
Meanwhile, a Jan. 3 decision by the anti-graft court’s Third Division said that a motion to quash should be filed before arraignment, whereas Ms. Reyes had already been arraigned as the court entered a not guilty plea for her in July 2014.
Ms. Reyes said she could not file a motion to quash before the Sandiganbayan as she had a pending motion for certiorari with the SC during that time assailing the validity of the prosecution’s preliminary investigation.
“Accused Reyes could therefore not have filed a motion to quash with this Honorable Court prior to her arraignment, as she would have taken a position inconsistent with her stance on the nullity of the antecedent proceedings before the Office of the Ombudsman, which should not have given rise to the resent criminal case at all,” read the motion.
Ms. Reyes added that her participation in the present proceeding is not only out of “respect and fervent” to the court, but also because she has no choice “but to obey the orders of the Court in proceedings.”
“[A]ccused Reyes had to participate in the proceedings so that she may not be deemed to have waived her rights and remedies altogether,” the motion further read.
Ms. Reyes also cited the recent case of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo v. People, where the SC said that “the law on plunder requires that a particular public officer must be identified as the one who amassed, acquired or accumulated ill-gotten wealth.”
But in the information filed, Ms. Reyes said the prosecutors did not identify a “specific public officer” as the main plunderer.
The motion also stated that the use of the words “and/or” in the information “is not only confusing, it is also indicative that the prosecution’s failure to allege the predicative acts of plunder and the conspiracy of the crime.”
“[A]ccused Reyes respectfully pleads that the honorable court take a second hard look at the totality of the circumstances in appreciating, though the instant motion for reconsideration, her motion to quash and plea for discharge,” the motion further read. — Raynan F. Javil
Jessica Lucila “Gigi” G. Reyes arrives at the Sandiganbayan on September 5, 2014 for the arraignment on graft charges over the pork barrel scam.
