House Majority Leader and Camarines Sur Rep. Rolando Andaya Jr. has appealed the decision of the Sandiganbayan denying his plea to be provided with the specific offenses that he was accused of committing in connection with the alleged P900-million Malampaya Fund scam.
“Considering the gravity and magnitude of the charges against him, such a request for more factual details concerning his alleged complicity is not just a matter of procedural remedy but is a substantive right founded on the Constitution,” Andaya said in his 21-page motion dated Aug. 28.
Andaya, and his several co-accused in the case, including detained businesswoman Janet Lim-Napoles, and 22 others, are facing 97 counts each of violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents.
They were accused of diverting P900 million from the Malampaya funds allocated by the Department of Budget and Management to the Department of Agrarian Reform in 2009 and in the process using 12 Janet Lim Napoles-led non-government organizations as conduits to the alleged fraud.
In his motion, “accused Andaya respectfully beseeches this honorable court to take a second look at his omnibus motion (especially the motion for bill of particulars therein contained) and for that purpose, seeks the reconsideration of assailed resolution on any or all of the following:
• With all due respect, this honorable court ered in denying accused Andaya’s motion for bills of particulars considering that the informations charging accused Andaya with violations of Sec. 3(E) of RA No. 3019 and of malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents are clearly ambigious and undeniably lack the details needed for accused Andaya to be fully apprised of the prosecution’s theory of the cases as against him. Consequently, accused Andaya is rendered unable to properly prepare his defenses (while allowing the prosecution to unduly surprise accuse Andaya at trial).
• This honorable court failed in its duty to weigh accused Andaya’s request for details from the prosecution and to determine specifically whether the details accused Andaya seeks to be specified are wiithin the office of a bill of particulars.”
He said his “request for bills of particulars cannot be denied on the simple and expedient grounds that the information, as worded, adequately apprise him of the nature and accuse of the accusations against him.”
“Even assuming that the informations sufficiently allege the nature and accuse of the accusations against accused Andaya, this cannot dfeat his right to request for a bill of particulars in order to adequately and intelligently prepare his defenses for trial and concomitantly set limitations to the prosecution’s right to offer evidence so as to preclude unfair surprises,” Andaya said in his motion.