{"id":89459,"date":"2017-02-14T18:19:34","date_gmt":"2017-02-14T23:19:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=89459"},"modified":"2017-02-14T18:19:34","modified_gmt":"2017-02-14T23:19:34","slug":"sandiganbayan-upholds-dismissal-of-php723-m-plunder-case-vs-bolante","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2017\/02\/14\/sandiganbayan-upholds-dismissal-of-php723-m-plunder-case-vs-bolante\/","title":{"rendered":"Sandiganbayan upholds dismissal of PHP723-M plunder case vs. Bolante"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"The<\/a>
The Sandiganbayan has upheld the dismissal of the PHP723-million plunder case against former Department of Agriculture (DA) Undersecretary Jocelyn \u201cJoc-joc Bolante\u201d in connection with the alleged fertilizer fund scam. \/ Wikipedia Photo<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

MANILA \u2013The Sandiganbayan has upheld the dismissal of the PHP723-million plunder case against former Department of Agriculture (DA) Undersecretary Jocelyn \u201cJoc-joc Bolante\u201d in connection with the alleged fertilizer fund scam.<\/p>\n

\u201dThe prosecution must have overlooked the well-recognized power of judges to dismiss a criminal case when the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest,\u201d the Sandiganbayan Second Division said in its ruling released on Tuesday.<\/p>\n

\u201dAs the prosecution is wont in reminding this Court not to intrude into the former executive’s functions so must this Court also remind prosecution to refrain from interfering with the Court’s judicial functions,\u201d the Sandiganbayan said.<\/p>\n

Last Dec. 12, the Sandiganbayan acquitted Bolante of plunder case over the alleged misuse of PHP723-million fertilizer fund.<\/p>\n

The anti-graft court said the prosecution failed to provide evidence that will link Bolante to plunder charges.<\/p>\n

Last August, the prosecution submitted a 20-page judicial affidavit of “whistleblower” Jose Barredo, claiming that he was a runner in the fertilizer fund scam.<\/p>\n

However, the Sandiganbayan found “nothing substantial” on Barredo’s statement.<\/p>\n

The Sandiganbayan dismissed the PHP723-million fertilizer fund scam plunder case despite the chance given to the prosecution to amend the case information.<\/p>\n

“All that is essentially stated by Barredo is the modus operandi of the scam, the persons who were offered…,” the Sandiganbayan said.<\/p>\n

“…or had received, and how the “SOP” (Standard Operating Procedure) or commissions were distributed,” it added.<\/p>\n

The Sandiganbayan said that Bolante was “central key player in the case but there was no proof he acquired ill-gotten wealth.\u201d<\/p>\n

“No material representation, other than the release of the funds, could be shown attributable to accused Bolante,” it added.<\/p>\n

\u201cAnent the prosecution\u2019s insistence on the existence of probable cause, the same must be denied there being no new arguments to warrant the reversal of the Court\u2019s previous ruling. The reasons therefor are set forth in the assailed resolution, which the Court sees no need to reiterate in this resolution,\u201d the Sandiganbayan said.<\/p>\n

\u201dWherefore, finding the Motion for Reconsideration of the resolution to be without merit, the same is hereby DENIED,\u201d it added.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

MANILA \u2013The Sandiganbayan has upheld the dismissal of the PHP723-million plunder case against former Department of Agriculture (DA) Undersecretary Jocelyn …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":33,"featured_media":12928,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,95],"tags":[15200,4769,1594],"class_list":["post-89459","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-news","category-news-ph","tag-jocelyn-joc-joc-bolante","tag-plunder-case","tag-sandiganbayan","mauthors-philippine-news-agency"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/89459","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/33"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=89459"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/89459\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/12928"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=89459"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=89459"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=89459"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}