La Union, Davao Oriental agri officers say towns didn’t get benefits from Enrile PDAF

Two municipal agriculturists from La Union and Davao Oriental on Thursday testified that their areas did not receive the agricultural packages and livelihood projects identified in the 15 graft charges filed against former senator Juan Ponce Enrile and his former chief-of-staff Gigi Reyes over the alleged misuse of Enrile’s discretionary fund or pork barrel.

Banaybanay, Davao Oriental municipal agriculturist Ester Solamo and former San Juan, La Union municipal agriculturist Margarita Guinomma testified before the Sandiganbayan Third Division through the adoption of their  judicial affidavits as direct testimony.

Solamo was also cross-examined by defense counsel Marcelo Rempillo, Jr. who serves as the lawyer for co-accused Jo Christine and James Christopher Napoles, children of businesswoman Janet Lim Napoles, who is also accused in the 15 graft cases.

Solamo, who was Agricultural Center Chief 1 during the period covered in the graft raps in 2009, was firm that the list of supposed beneficiaries presented by state prosecutors to her and attached to her judicial affidavit was bogus.

“I am familiar with their [supposed beneficiaries] signatures because they are my family members like my brother-in-law, uncle, auntie, father, church mates. I am very knowledgeable because they are my close relatives, church mates,” Solamo told the anti-graft court.

“I am familiar with their signatures. Even that of our barangay captain, iba talaga [it was really different],” she added.

Solamo also responded in the affirmative when Rempillo asked if she concludes that the subject individuals did not receive the agricultural packages and livelihood projects since they did not mention such an incident to her, as stated in Solamo’s judicial affidavit.

During the redirect examination, state prosecutor Khadaffy Ferdinand Garzon asked Solamo for other reasons as to why she concluded that the subject individuals did not receive the agricultural packages and livelihood products aside from the fact that they did not mention them.

“I also asked them questions whether they received them, and they told me they did not receive the packages and livelihood projects,” Solamo responded.

Rempillo countered by asking Solamo why she said that she conducted the inquiry herself in the judicial affidavit.

At this point, Solamo said she was not able to include her own probe in her judicial affidavit because the documents attached to her judicial affidavit presented to her by state prosecutors also showed a forged signature of one of her colleagues, and that the colleague was even wrongly identified as a municipal agriculturist.

“Hindi ko naisama kasi doon sa question [and answer] number 18 sa judicial affidavit] kasi hindi sa kanya [ang pirma]. Iba talaga iyong signature kasi hindi naman siya municipal agriculturist," Solamo said.

Rempillo moved to strike out Solamo’s response for being non-responsive, but to no avail.

“Let the court determine [if] that [is unresponsive],” Sandiganbayan Third Division Associate Justice Bernelito Fernandez said. — BM, GMA Integrated News