Inconsistencies
Dennis Cunanan, the director general (on leave) of the Technology Resource Center, was the first government official allegedly involved in the so-called pork barrel scam to testify before the Senate blue ribbon committee; that fact gave his appearance at Thursday’s hearing additional import. His position at an agency which channeled Priority Development Assistance Fund allocations to suspect beneficiary organizations specifically identified by the offices of at least three senators could illuminate how the scam operated. At the same time, it raised the standards by which he and his testimony, and his application to turn state’s witness, must be judged.
It was only right, then, that Cunanan was subjected to repeated tests of his credibility. Sen. Grace Poe was the most pointed in her questions, forcing Cunanan to confront the inconsistencies between his press statements and his affidavit, and between his affidavit and his testimony at the hearing. The most puzzling inconsistency was his failure to state in his affidavit a significant, indeed material, fact: that he had visited alleged scam mastermind Janet Lim Napoles in her office.
Cunanan, once a student leader at the University of the Philippines who made for himself a career serving in different government offices through several administrations, could only offer a lame excuse: He had chosen, he said, to mention in his affidavit only the first instance he met Napoles, which happened at his own office. “Yung first na na-meet ko yung tao” (the first time I met the person), he said.
Unfortunately for Cunanan, that second meeting at Napoles’ office was the one where Benhur Luy, Napoles’ former aide and now the principal whistle-blower in the pork barrel scam, remembered seeing Cunanan being given a P960,000 incentive. In his own affidavit, Luy testified that he had personally seen Cunanan receive the money. Cunanan denied this repeatedly, and indeed Luy had to admit that while he placed the money in a paper bag and then gave it to his associate Evelyn de Leon, he didn’t see De Leon actually give the bag to Cunanan.
Under questioning by Sen. Koko Pimentel, however, Luy added: “Pagkalabas po ng conference room, nakita ko siya bitbit niya” (When he left the conference room, I saw him holding the paper bag).
This is a fact that must be established beyond all doubt, because it affects not only Cunanan’s application to turn state’s witness or indeed his own credibility, but Luy’s credibility as well. Poe issued an appeal to Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, who was also at the hearing, to be extra cautious in evaluating Cunanan’s testimony and his fitness as state’s witness, precisely because some of his statements go against the testimony of Luy and other whistle-blowers. “The last thing we would like—and I think the people don’t deserve—is for another witness to put holes in the testimony of other star witnesses,” Poe said.
At one point in the hearing, Cunanan said he and his lawyers were confident that he would be acquitted in the two plunder cases he was facing. That assertion should embolden both De Lima and Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales, who will have the final say on whether Cunanan can in fact serve as state’s witness, to deny his application.
The documentary part of his testimony Thursday was solid, and definitely adverse against not only Senators Jinggoy Estrada and Bong Revilla but (to the evident and irrepressible delight of Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago) even the former Senate president Juan Ponce Enrile. But the Department of Justice already has its own copies of the documents (mainly from the Commission on Audit). What Cunanan really brings to the table, in terms of evidence, is his testimony about speaking on the phone with Estrada (once) and Revilla (at least twice). Both senators, he said, expressed impatience with the delay in the release of the PDAF allocations for their projects, and wanted these expedited.
Whether or not Cunanan will be extended the privilege of turning state’s witness (and therefore enjoy legal immunity), he has no choice but to stand by this testimony. It is another important step forward in the plunder case against Napoles and the three senators—but it need not come with entry into the Witness Protection Program.
