"It is but proper and fitting that this Court commend the unfaltering and very able assistance rendered to the accused, seen from the excellent presentation made of his case, particularly by his defense counsel, Atty. Abelardo L. Aportadera, Jr., of Davao City, who unstintedly and magnanimously contributed his legal talents and efforts in the hope that justice may ultimately prevail." X X X
Supreme Court Decision in 'People of the Philippines - versus- Lucio Lumayok' G.R. No. L-54016
BA HOMEPAGE
Section:
NEWS
|
SC Affirms Dismissal of Plunder Case Against Estrada, Velarde, et al. |
By Jay B. Rempillo
October 2009
Voting unanimously, the Supreme Court has affirmed the dismissal by the Office of the Ombudsman of the plunder case against former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada, El Shaddai founder and leader Mariano “Bro. Mike” Z. Velarde, et al. in connection with the Estrada administration’s PhP1.22 billion acquisition in 1999 of the nine parcels of land owned by Velarde’s AMVEL Land Corporation (AMVEL), which were affected by the construction of the Tollway Project C-5 Link Expressway.
In a 68-page resolution penned by Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, the Court dismissed the petition of lawyer Ernesto Francisco, Jr. who was the complainant in the case for violation of RA 7080, the Anti-Plunder Law, filed against Estrada; private respondents Velarde and his son Franklin M. Velarde, AMVEL Chair and Executive Vice President, respectively; and several others before the Ombudsman.
“We find no cogent reason to weigh all over again the evidence in this case
and to reverse the findings of the public respondent (Ombudsman),” held the
Court. Citing Tirol v.
The Court did not give weight to Francisco’s contention that the Office of
the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion in issuing its assailed
In his complaint, Francisco alleged that the subject AMVEL properties were
outrageously overpriced by PhP828.6 million to the disadvantage of the
government. He argued that the purchase price for the right-of-way acquisition
“should be equivalent of the zonal value plus 10 percent thereof” based on
Administrative Order No. 50, which Estrada himself had issued on
Then Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto, however, held that the uncontroverted
facts clearly show that governing law in the case at bar was EO 132, issued on
The Ombudsman concluded that “A perusal of the guidelines as well as the
documentary evidence on the transaction reveals that respondents complied with
the prescribed procedure in determining a fair and reasonable valuation of the
properties in question….There is no evidence that public respondents
benefited/profited or had taken shares with private respondents in the
transaction…Considering that the crimes imputed against the respondents were
not shown to exist, conspiracy could not likewise be appreciated. It is a well
settled rule that conspiracy must be proven as clearly as the commission of the
offense itself.” (GR No. 154117, Francisco, Jr. v. Desierto,