Former lawyer of Janet Napoles breaks silence on acquittal issue

San Beda lawyer Bruce Rivera, finally speaks out his opinion about the acquittal of Janet Napoles.

The Court of Appeals (CA) has found “reasonable doubt” to acquit alleged “pork barrel” scam architect Janet Lim Napoles for the crime of serious illegal detention. This is in connection with the supposed abduction and detention of her former aide and relative, Benhur Luy, and reversed a lower court ruling that found Napoles guilty.



Read below statement of Atty. Bruce Rivera:

ON THE NAPOLES ACQUITTAL
by Atty. Bruce V. Rivera

I guess the cat is out of the bag and I am happy that the CA overturned the conviction of Janet Lim-Napoles. I have not read the decision but being the lawyer (yes, Falcis..I actually tried a controversial case) who finished the case up to its judgment in the RTC in the sala of Judge Alameda, I expected the decision.

No self-respecting lawyer or magistrate will find that she illegally detained Luy beyond reasonable doubt. That is assuming that you would read the transcripts of the case and you are not blinded by jaundice. I can engage in debate any lawyer on this matter.

When she was convicted and the penalty was reclusion perpetua, I silently cried. Justice was at its lowest because the trier of facts (the RTC where the trial was held) disregarded everything we have presented and simply based their decision on the fact that Napoles never appeared in court to personally deny the allegations. Guilty because she refused to testify.

The RTC forgot the fact that there was the constitutional guarantee on the right against self-incrimination that gave Napoles the right NOT to testify. And she need not testify. Her only role in the story was when she fought with Luy and told Luy, "ipapakulong kita", then called her lawyers. After that, she wants nothing to do with him. Later on, that statement would be used as intent to detain by the prosecution when it should have been intent to file charges as common understanding would merit.

And the right to self-incrimination was raised not from prosecution on the illegal detention case but from any questions the battery of prosecutors would have asked on the pork barrel case. I was her lawyer and thus, it was my decision not to put her on the witness stand.

And I never regretted on this decision.

Napoles was already judged by the media and the people. Now matter how truthful her account would be will not matter to a lynch mob. Second, she can only testify on collateral matters because after she confronted Luy, she did not see him or wanted to have anything to do with him. Third, she was prosecuted literally by the Aquino administration. It was a done deal.



What they wanted was put her on the witness stand and get to bombard her with questions on the pork barrel. And knowing PNoy will not make her state witness, it was meant to discredit her more so she will not be able to testify against them. I am not that stupid.

The serious illegal detention case was filed to put Napoles under the mercy of the administration. De Lima candidly admitted that to me. Insiders in the DOJ knows the integrity of Navera and he was the one who initially found no probable cause to charge Napoles with serious illegal detention. Its just sad that honesty and integrity are not prized qualities during PNoys time.

So there it is. Napolitika si Napoles.

And there was no PRRD influence in this case. And no need to peddle influence. Para que? In an unbiased judicial system, she would be acquitted based on the facts we have established.
And I already waged my right testicle, if I would be wrong.

Guess, my bayag is still intact.

Love this article? Sharing is caring!