Salvation: Gov. Ed Panlilio and Gov. Jonjon Mendoza

Rogier van der Weyden. “St. George and the Dragon”. c. 1432. Oil on wood. The National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, USA. Right-clicked from abcgallery.com

Don’t return the money yet. Pampanga governor Ed Panlilio should not return the money (the P500,000.oo) or spend it, it is evidence. He should mark it, document the serial numbers for future use as evidence.

Now that Bulacan governor Jonjon Mendoza has also confirmed an hour ago that he too was given a bag of money (also P500,000.oo), if it is possible, he might be prevailed upon too, to hold on to the money for future use as evidence. They will not have any criminal liability (or any liability springing from any criminal act) since they voluntarily gave the information and if they could be prevailed upon to testify. As everyone knows, there is a law exempting from criminal liability those who give information on acts that may constitute corrupt practices.

Under PD 749, any person who voluntarily gives information on acts that constitute corrupt practices and other forms of dishonesty on the part of public officials and who willingly testifies, shall be exempt from prosecution or punishment with regard to such offense (and this applies to bribe-givers as well). The PD is entitled “Granting immunity to givers of bribes xxx and their accomplices” applies also to those who received money that may have been given to them as corrupt practice (“accomplices”, witting or unwitting. ) Here are the provisions:

“Presidential Decree 749. xxxSection 1. Any person who voluntarily gives information about any violation of Articles 210, 211, and 212 of the Revised Penal Code; Republic Act Numbered Three Thousand Nineteen, as amended; Section 345 of the Internal Revenue Code and Section 3604 of the Tariff and Customs Code and other provisions of the said Codes penalizing abuse or dishonesty on the part of the public officials concerned; and other laws, rules and regulations punishing acts of graft, corruption and other forms of official abuse; and who willingly testifies against any public official or employee for such violation shall be exempt from prosecution or punishment for the offense with reference to which his information and testimony were given, and may plead or prove the giving of such information and testimony in bar of such prosecution: Provided; that this immunity may be enjoyed even in cases where the information and testimony are given against a person who is not a public official but who is a principal, or accomplice, or accessory in the commission of any of the above-mentioned violations: Provided, further, that this immunity may be enjoyed by such informant or witness notwithstanding that he offered or gave the bribe or gift to the public official or his accomplice for such gift or bribe-giving; and Provided, finally, that the following conditions concur:

“1. The information must refer to consummated violations of any of the above-mentioned provisions of law, rules and regulations;

“2. The information and testimony are necessary for the conviction of the accused public officer;

“3. Such information and testimony are not yet in the possession of the State;

“4. Such information and testimony can be corroborated on its material points; and

“5. The informant or witness has not been previously convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. xxx “Section 3. All preliminary investigations conducted by a prosecuting fiscal, judge or committee, and all proceedings undertaken in connection therewith, shall be strictly confidential or private in order to protect the reputation of the official under investigation in the event that the report proves to be unfounded or no prima facie case is established. xxx”

Based on the circumstances surrounding the giving of “cash gifts” (that it was given contemporaneously with an official meeting of the League of Provincial Governors held in Malacañang) and that apparently it was given by Palace staff, it appears that the “cash gifts” came from the host (or hostess) of the luncheon meeting.

In addition, those who would ask questions of the two governors should listen carefully to what they say. In particular, Governor Jonjon Mendoza said that the two bags of money (one for him and the other for Governor Panlileo) was given to him right after the meeting, while he was still inside the Palace, by a female person. When he talked, the moment was lost when it was not ferreted out from him: 1. the description of the person who handed the bags of money; 2. was she wearing a uniform, office wear, a suit, etc.; 3. was she wearing an employee’s i.d. or visitor’s i.d. or none; 4.details on her physical characteristics; 5.was she seen in the room during the meeting; etc. 6. would he recognize her again? etc. She’s the link. She’s more important than what the governor felt at that moment or such other questions. (she’ll probaly be reassigned now, so the moment was lost.) (okay, steal ideas here, everybody does.)

Just to clear the air, perhaps the two governors could be pevailed upon to document the money first and hold on to them in the meantime.