By Benjamin Pulta
MANILA – The Sandiganbayan has turned down the motion for reconsideration filed by Macao-based businessman Jack Lam in the charges filed against him for “gift-giving” arising from the 2016 incident involving former immigration officials who were subsequently charged with plunder.
The anti-graft court’s Sixth Division, in a resolution dated April 14 and written by Associate Justice Sara Fernandez, denied Lam’s plea for lack of merit.
The businessman has asked the Sandiganbayan to review its March 27 ruling on his indictment for violation of Presidential Decree No. 46, penalizing gift-giving by private individuals to government officials and employees.
Lam had been charged for handing former Bureau of Immigration (BI) deputy commissioners Al Argosino and Michael B. Robles tens of millions of pesos through Wenceslao Sombero Jr., purportedly in exchange for the release of detained Chinese nationals working at Fontana Leisure Parks and Casino in Clark, Pampanga, in 2016.
Argosino and Robles face separate charges under Republic Act 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and plunder.
In seeking dismissal of the charges against him, Lam argued that “because he is the victim of a conspiracy of Argosino, Robles and Sombero, he should not have been indicted for violation of Presidential Decree No. 46.”
He added that since it was Sombrero who gave the money to the two, “the mere allegation that the money (given to Argosino and Robles) was his (Lam) is not sufficient to establish prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction.”
The anti-graft court, however, denied Lam’s motion, saying it is “not a ground for quashing an information” under court rules.
The court also said the new rules requiring more stringent scrutiny by the prosecutor, requiring “prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction” under the 2024 Department of Justice (DOJ) rules on preliminary investigation and inquest proceedings, do not apply in Lam’s case.
“The said DOJ issuance finds no application in the present case because it specifically applies to preliminary investigations and inquest proceedings in all prosecution offices,” the tribunal explained.
“More importantly, the information was filed way back on March 23, 2018. Whether there was prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction or there was probable cause to indict the accused in court is a matter better raised during the preliminary investigation, which had long been terminated,” the court added. (PNA)
