The DOJ announced that it would file a plunder complaint based on the so-called P10 billion pork barrel scam exposed by former staff members of Janet Lim-Napoles, against three to five senators, a good number of congressmen, Janet Lim-Napoles, et al.
Since much of news reporting today is in the vernacular (Filipino), i thought i’d set out the following, for accuracy’s sake:
Plunder has been translated as “pandarambong”. Graft and corruption has been translated before as “pangungulimbat”, or if it’s petty or small amounts, “pangungupit”. Although “pangungupit” could also mean qualified theft.
What would be filed today is a complaint for plunder. In Filipino, complaint could be translated into “reklamo” . Or maybe even “demanda”. So, the act of filing could be translated into: “Sasampahan ng reklamo para sa pandarambong … etc”. Some editors translate it into “Kakasuhan ng plunder…etc.”.
i’m no professional linguist, but just based on experience, when you say a case has been filed against Juan Doe, it usually means an Information or formal charge had already been lodged in the Sandiganbayan, which comes only after preliminary investigation.
After the complaint is filed, it goes thru a preliminary investigation. How long does it take before the preliminary investigation is resolved? Because the public has become cynical about the judicial system, here are supposedly the periods provided by the revised rules of criminal procedure:
1) the investigating officer (in this case, the special prosecutor or Ombudsman investigator) has ten days to either dismiss the complaint or find ground to issue a subpoena to the respondents.
2) upon receipt of the subpoena, respondents have ten days to file their counter-affidavits. The counter-affidavit must be sworn to before the investigating officer.
3) if the respondent does not file a counter-affidavit within this ten-day period, the investigating officer shall resolve the complaint based solely on the evidence of the complainant.
(If a respondent has defenses but did not file a counter-affidavit, kawawa naman sya because only the evidence of the complainant was heard, so if you have good defenses, it is better to file a counter-affidavit).
4) within ten days (this is already the third 10-day period), the investigating officer may conduct a hearing in order to propound clarificatory questions of the complainant/ respondents/ witnesses.
5) this hearing by the investigating office shall be terminated within five days.
6) Within ten days, the investigating officer should resolve the preliminary investigation.
(in real life, hwag ka magalit sa akin, prosecutors in ordinary cases are overburdened with hundreds and hundreds of cases on preliminary investigation not to mention having to attend hearings almost on a daily basis, so it takes them a lot more than ten days. Some take 90 days or even a year if there are no follow-ups).
7) After the 10-day period abovestated, the investigating officer has five days to forward the resolution and the records to the Ombudsman or deputy.
8) After the 5-day period above, the Ombudsman has ten days to resolve. If there is a finding of a prima facie case, the Information or formal charge is then filed in court, in this case the Sandiganbayan.
This is the only time you could properly say that a case has been filed. The respondents now become the accused. People of the Philippines versus _______, _______, and John Does. 9)The court has ten days to issue the warrant of arrest, or, if the court is not satisfied that there is a prima facie case, shall ask the prosecutor within five days to submit additional evidence and shall resolve the issue within 30 days.
How many 10-day periods did you count? Six, right? How many 5-day periods? Two, right? So, 70 days, but in real life and in ordinary cases, where investigators and prosecutors are overburdened, it could take a year or even more. However in some cases, where there is great public interest and people are vigilant, the investigators, prosecutors, and the court may proceed promptly.
On Nov. 28, 2000, we, together with more than a hundred lawyers, signed the plunder complaint against then incumbent president Joseph Estrada, et al. The complaint was filed with the Ombudsman the next day. In an interview earlier, then Ombudsman Aniano Desierto said Estrada, being a sitting president, could not be charged, because of “presidential immunity”. We went ahead anyway. Estrada was ousted on January 20, 2001. The plunder complaint with supporting evidence was resolved on April 25, 2001 with the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
Of course, in practice, whenever you file a motion to suspend (or motion for continuance or motion for time), and if you’re new, your senior partner will lecture you: don’t presume the court will grant it, until granted, you have to show up . Lecture lecture.
In practice however, in ordinary cases (that is, in ordinary cases, not in so-callled “high profile” cases) you usually give opposing counsel paňero/ paňero/ the courtesy of an advanced copy of your motion for continuance and give a friendly phone call – in real life and in ordinary cases, lawyers and opposing counsels become friends in the course of the trial. Then you inform the clerk of court in advance that you and opposing counsel have spoken of other trial dates etc. etc. , the clerk of court will confirm with opposing counsel, etc. etc. it makes the workings of the court more efficient when you prepare for contingencies before the hearing, the clerk of court can accommodate more cases in the calendar, and it makes the job of the judge less stressful …
Trade secrets. that’s in ordinary cases; in so-called “high profile” cases, sometimes, the lawyers get on each others nerves; for some reason, lawyers get too stressed out when millions and millions of people are watching their every move and thousands of people want to talk to them and they need to talk, study, read, write, prep, meet up, thousands of times endlessly .
People vs. Janet Lim- Napoles for serious illegal detention. News peg: DZMM reported that the accused filed an urgent “Motion for a Bill of Particulars” in this case at 4pm today.
The following are the pertinent provisions on the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure on this:
“Rule 116 Arraignment and Plea. Section 9. Bill of particulars. — The accused may, before arraignment, move for a bill of particulars to enable him properly to plead and to prepare for trial. The motion shall specify the alleged defects of the complaint or information and the details desired. (10a)
“Section 10. Production or inspection of material evidence in possession of prosecution. — Upon motion of the accused showing good cause and with notice to the parties, the court, in order to prevent surprise, suppression, or alteration, may order the prosecution to produce and permit the inspection and copying or photographing of any written statement given by the complainant and other witnesses in any investigation of the offense conducted by the prosecution or other investigating officers, as well as any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things not otherwise privileged, which constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the case and which are in the possession or under the control of the prosecution, police, or other law investigating agencies. (11a)
“Section 11. Suspension of arraignment. — Upon motion by the proper party, the arraignment shall be suspended in the following cases:
“ (a)The accused appears to be suffering from an unsound mental condition which effective renders him unable to fully understand the charge against him and to plead intelligently thereto. In such case, the court shall order his mental examination and, if necessary, his confinement for such purpose;
“ (b)There exists a prejudicial question; and
“(c)A petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor is pending at either the Department of Justice, or the Office of the President; provided, that the period of suspension shall not exceed sixty (60) days counted from the filing of the petition with the reviewing office. (12a)”
A motion for a bill of particulars is filed by an accused who thinks that the Information (formal charge) against him/her is too general. In other words, the accused wants to find out from the prosecution: What overt acts in detail are you charging me with and what evidence do you have against me? This is based on the right of the accused to be informed of the charges against him/her, or to be informed of the particularities of the overt acts he/she is accused to have committed.
The arraignment is on Sept. 9; if the Court grants the urgent “Motion for a Bill of Particulars” before Sept. 9, the prosecution must file the bill of particulars asked for on or before Sept. 9. If the Court does not act promptly on the motion or, if the Court grants and the prosecution complies, but the accused is not satisfied with the bill of particulars , the accused on Sept. 9 may either move for a suspension of the arraignment (reset or defer) on grounds of a prejudicial question under Sec. 11 (abovequoted).
If a motion for suspension is denied right there and then, and the accused is compelled to enter a plea, the accused may refuse — the court would then order that a plea of “not guilty” be entered for the accused.
Motions, motions. Act on the motions before Sept. 9, okay?
I haven’t seen the Information (formal charge) for serious illegal detention filed against Janet Lim-Napoles, and therefore would have to refrain from giving an opinion on how detailed or how general it is.
