Pork barrel scam witness admits inconsistencies in four affidavits

A witness in the pork barrel fund scam on Friday admitted that there were some inconsistencies in her sworn testimonies about the elaborate scheme that saw  billions of pesos in government money funneled to fake foundations allegedly owned by businesswoman Janet Lim-Napoles.

 

At the continuation of the hearing of  Napoles’ petition for bail before the Sandigabayan Third Division, her former employee Merlina Suñas admitted that there were inconsistencies in her four sworn affidavits  about the pork scam– three of which were made before the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) while another was made before the Office of the Ombudsman  Field Investigation Office (FIO).

 

Suñas made the admission after she was repeatedly scolded by the justices of the Third Division following some inconsistencies in her testimony at Friday’s hearing and during the past few hearings  several weeks ago.

“Did you see any inconsistencies in your four affidavits?” Third Division member Associate Justice Alex Quiroz asked Suñas to which the latter reply: “Yes your honor, meron din po.”

 

“Kung papayagan kang baguhin ang iyong mga affidavit, may gusto ka bang ipabago?” Quiroz inquired further.

 

“With your permission, yes your honor, meron po,” Suñas said.

 

Quiroz, however, did not ask the witness further on what are some the matters in her affidavit that Suñas wished to be revised and instead declared that he will just leave it to the prosecution’s discreation on whether there is a need to move for the revision of Suñas’ affidavit.

 

At  earlier point of the hearing, justices of the Third Division saw several loopholes in Suñas’ testimony, particularly on the issue of coming up of names of the supposed beneficiaries of the fake foundations’ projects funded by the lawmakers’ Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or pork barrel.

 

Suñas reiterated  before the court her earlier testimony in the First and Fifth Divisions of the Sandiganbayan that upon the instruction of Napoles, she and the other whistleblowers led by Benhur Luy fabricated the list of beneficiaries of the supposed projects of the Napoles-linked NGOs. 

 

“Yung iba pong names ay kinuha namin sa mga newspapers at yellowpages. Yung iba naman po ay sa list of bar (exam) passers,” Suñas told the court, consistent with her testimony in the First Division and Fifth Division.

 

Suñas said they got the idea of getting names from the newspaper and yellow pages from a certain Marie, who, Suñas identified as a househelper of Napoles.

 

“Itong Marie na ito, what is her educational attainment?,” Third  Division chairman Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang inquired to which  Suñas replied: “I do not know, your honor."

 

 “You receive instructions from a househelper of Napoles? Mahilig ba siyang magbasa ng dyaryo?” Tang inquired further.

 

“Nagbabasa naman po siya your honor. At saka wala na po kasi talaga kaming mapagkuhanan. We have a template list of beneficiaries galing pa po sa mga previous projects ng NGOs ni Madame (Napoles) pero minsan kulang po iyon,” Suñas.

 

Suñas said the names of bar examination passers listed as beneficiaries of the bogus projects were taken from the 2007 and 2008 bar exams.

 

“Were the top ten passers of the exams included (in the list of beneficiaries)?,” Tang asked in jest to which  Suñas replied that she can no longer recall.

 

“I hope you did not include the names of the examiner because there is one Samuel Martires there who facilitated the exam about legal ethics,” Associate Justice Samuel Martires interjected in jest.

 

For the past two hearings the Third Division Justices has been scolding Suñas for some inconsistencies in her statements and for failing to recall major details of pork scam scheme.

 

Meanwhile, Martires also slammed Suñas on the latter’s testimony about making withdrawals from the bank accounts of the Napoles-linked NGOs.

 

Suñas claimed that she was able to withdraw millions of pesos from the bank accounst of the NGOs allegedly owned by Napoles due to pre-signed withdrawal slips and passbooks signed by the latter.

 

“Itong pre-signed withdrawal slips paano bine-verify ng bangko?” Martires asked.

 

Suñas said the bank’s transaction verifier called Napoles by phone to confirm her signature on the withdrawal slips.

 

“Paano ka nakakasigurado na si Napoles ang nasa kabilang linya ng telepono?,” Martires asked.

 

“Kasi po binibigay ko ang cellphone ko sa verifier para tawagan si Napoles at dahil pagkatapos po ng call, isinusulat po ng verifier sa withdrawal slip ‘confirmed by Janet Lim-Napoles’,”  Suñas said.

 

“Why would the bank verifier use your cellphone to call Napoles? Wala bang record ang bangko ng telepono ni Napoles?,” Martires said.

 

“Wala po your honor…hindi po namin dapat ipamigay ang kanyang telepono except sa aming mga empleyado at kanyang family members,” Suñas replied.

 

Napoles has earlier denied that she signed any withdrawal slips nor gave any confirmation to banks for the withdrawals made by Luy and the other whistleblowers to the bank accounts of the NGOs.

 

After the hearing Napoles’ lawyer Stephen David dismissed Suñas’ testimonies as “lies”. 

 

“Yung sinasabi niyang Marie, sabi sakin ni Napoles, wala naman siyang katulong o tauhan na may pangalang Marie. Saan kaya niya (Suñas) nakuha ang pangalang yun?” David.

 

“At meron ba namang bangko na magve-verify gamit ang cellphone ng ibang tao…at bakit kay Napoles magve-verify ang bangko e hindi naman siya ang nakapangalan sa bank accounts ng mga NGOs,” David added. —NB, GMA News