The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) did not abuse their discretions in probing and recommending the criminal indictment of House Deputy Speaker Rufus B. Rodriguez for his alleged misuse of his Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF).
In a resolution promulgated last July 28 but made public last Oct. 29, the SC denied the petition filed by Rodriguez against the NBI, then headed by former Director Virgilio L. Mendez, and the DOJ, then headed by the now detained Sen. Leila M. de Lima.
The SC said:
“Consequently, there being no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the NBI in conducting an investigation on the person of petitioner (Rodriguez) as to his participation in the Napoles PDAF Scam, the Court finds no ground to nullify the NBI's investigation.
“In the same vein, the Court finds no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the NBI and the DOJ in filing the letter-complaints against petitioner (Rodriguez), among others, with the Ornbudsman.
“WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.”
In an executive summary dated Aug. 7, 2015 based on letter-complaints, the NBI recommended to the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) the conduct of further fact-finding investigation or preliminary investigation of Rodriquez, among other legislators, and the eventual filing of charges before the Sandiganbayan.
Then DOJ Secretary De Lima approved the NBI’s recommendations.
The NBI told the OMB it found sufficient evidence to prosecute Rodriguez, among other legislators, for malversation of public funds through negligence; direct bribery; and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Specifically, the NBI claimed that Rodriguez received more than P2 million as “kickback” from the use of his PDAF funds coursed through businesswoman Janet Lim Napoles’ non-government organizations (NGOs).
Based on its probe, the NBI alleged that all of the NGOs of Napoles were “ghost ones” and that they were used as mere conduits for the purported implementation and liquidation of projects financed by the PDAF.
The NBI also alleged that bulk of the funds were pocketed by several lawmakers, one of them Rodriguez.
Napoles has been in detention after her conviction of plunder, graft, and other criminal charges related to the PDAF irregularities.
In his petition, Rodriguez told the SC the NBI and the DOJ acted in excess of their jurisdiction and/or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in conducting a formal investigation against him in relation to the Napoles PDAF scam.
Rodriguez asserted his rights to due process and equal protection of the law were violated when they conducted an investigation and recommended his indictment without giving him the opportunity to be heard.
In dismissing Rodriguez’s petition, the SC said the NBI’s investigation and the subsequent issuance of the executive summary and letter-complaints against the legislator were done merely in the performance of its mandate.
The SC said: “The NBI did not perform a judicial or quasi-judicial function when it recommended to the Ombudsman further fact-finding investigation or the corresponding preliminary investigation for the eventual filing of the appropriate charges before the Sandiganbayan. Instead, the findings of the NBI were merely recommendatory and still subject to the Ombudsman's actions.”
At the same time, the SC disagreed with Rodriguez who claimed that the NBI and the DOJ violated their rules by refusing to issue a subpoena and take or require his sworn statements.
“There is not even a vested right granted by law to any person under investigation to participate in the proceedings before the NBI,” the SC noted.
“The issuance of a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum for the appearance of a person under investigation and the taking of and requiring sworn truthful statements of any person, or persons so summoned in relation to cases under investigation are left to the sound discretion of the investigator,” the SC stressed.