Manny Villar’s criminal prosecution possible — Enrile

January 28, 2010

A “guilty” verdict in the Senate committee of the whole (Scow)’s probe into Sen. Manuel Villar Jr. on the charge of ethical misconduct, does not translate to his expulsion, as he can continue being a lawmaker even if findings and recommendations on him in the committee report surrounding the C-5 controversy are carried by the Senate.

A censure is neither a suspension nor an expulsion of a member of Congress, or more specifically, a Senate member.

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile said this yesterday, adding, however, that criminal prosecution and imprisonment of Villar is possible, if the case is pursued before the courts.

“He will continue to be a senator. And all we will be saying is ‘don’t engage in this misconduct anymore. Don’t repeat this misconduct. If he continues to do it, the Filipino people will say: ‘Tell your senator colleagues so that they will know that the money that was taken from the budget was used for your project from which you benefited,’” Enrile said in a radio interview yesterday.

Enrile said it will be up for the courts to decide on the fate of Villar, in which jail term is among the possible penalties.

The Senate chief maintained that while they merely recommended that Villar be censured for funding in the 2008 national budget, a portion of the C-5 road extension project where some of his known real estate properties are found along its stretch, Enrile said information gathered by the committee of the whole is considered “credible substantial evidence.”

“If his (Villar’s) case is brought to a court of law, he will be jailed. We have evidence and based on the evidence, it says (Villar is) guilty,” he said.

Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago earlier contradicted Enrile’s position on the matter of standard of proof, saying that this is not provided by the Rules of the Senate.

“The draft committee report uses the following standard: ‘credible substantial evidence.’ I humbly submit that the standard of proof should be proof beyond reasonable doubt.”

Proof beyond reasonable doubt is the requirement in convicting an accused in criminal cases. In civil cases, the proof needed is merely a proponderance of evidence.

“In my humble opinion, there should be a different standard of proof on the two occasions when the Senate exercises its power to investigate. The first occasion is when the Senate conducts ordinary public hearings of a criminal nature, which usually ends in a recommendation for preliminary investigation to the Ombudsman. This being the case, the standard is low: prima facie standard, which is lower than the probable cause standard in a preliminary investigation.

“However, on the second occasion, when the Senate conducts an ethical investigation of its own members, the proceedings do not end in a mere recommendation to another government agency. On the contrary, an ethics investigation in the Senate leads to a decision which is immediately executory. According to the Senate rules, penalty is imposed by two-thirds vote of the entire membership. The Senate may punish any member for disorderly behavior, and may either go to the extent of suspending the senator, or expelling him. This being the case, since the penalty can be as high as expulsion, an ethics investigation can, in effect, even impose the capital punishment on a senator, by expelling him from the Senate. Hence, the standard of proof should be the same as the standard of proof in criminal cases: “proof beyond reasonable doubt.”

“Respondent Senator Villar preferred not to participate in the investigation. Analogous to a civil case, the committee can validly issue an order of default, or consider Senator Villar to have filed a demurrer to evidence. Analogous to a criminal case, the Senate investigation was a valid trial in absentia. Under the Rules of Court, absence of the accused is considered a waiver of the right to defend himself.

“The draft committee report admits that there is “no direct evidence” against Senator Villar. This being so, the lack of direct evidence does not meet the standard of “proof beyond reasonable doubt,” she said

Santiago is a senatorial candidate in the ticket of Villar.

Bookmark to: