Al Argosino and Michael Robles Case: A plunder Case

THE CASE

The Sandiganbayan 6th Division denied the bail petitions of former Bureau of Immigration Associate
Commissioners Al Argosino and Michael Robles as well as retired policeman Wally Sombero who are detained in
Camp Bagong Diwa on plunder charges. The anti-graft court said the three, who are facing plunder and other
charges in connection with the P50 million BI bribery scandal, are not entitled to bail using the standard of evident
guilt or presumption of guilt. 

Argosino and Robles are accused of extorting and receiving P50 million from business tycoon Jack Lam, in
exchange for the release of Lam’s Chinese casino employees, arrested by the BI in 2016 for being illegal aliens.
Sombero was the alleged middleman between Lam and the Immigration executives.

The P18 million that came into the possession of the BI’s former intelligence officer Charles Calima is now in the
custody of the Philippine National Police-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group or PNP-CIDG. This is in
addition to the P2 million which was allegedly a "balato" or a cut for Sombero which has been turned over to the
Office of the Ombudsman. The sums add up to P20 million.

The balance of P30 million went to Argosino and Robles, who claimed that they took the money only for the
purposes of gathering evidence for their own case build-up. They said they turned this over to former justice
secretary Vitaliano Aguirre II in December 2016.

THE DECISION

In the decision, the court noted that all of P50 million was accounted for, contrary to the count made by the
Department of Justice in 2016 that the amount was short by P1,000.

THE MISSING 1000

The Ombudsman said even if P1,000 was missing from the P50 million that they surrendered to the Department of
Justice, this “does not exonerate the accused from being indicted for the crime of plunder.” The Ombudsman
insisted that the case reached the P50-million threshold, because Argosino himself insisted that he received P48
million and Sombero took a P2-million cut from the bribe money he delivered on behalf of Macau-based tycoon
Jack Lam.

Even if the physical count of the money fell short, prosecutors said “the records of the case indubitably show that
the total amount received by the accused was P50 million.”

But what if the records would show that 1000 was really missing?

I think the plunder case should still proceed. It would always be questionable if only 1,000 would be missing.
It is hard to even think that the public will buy, in any way or form, the bizarre explanation that the exculpation
from plunder is just because of a missing 1,000. It would be a shameless trickery of the highest order, a shocking
case of mocking the law and gaming the system. Our courts should find the evidence to complete the threshold as
what happened in this case because if they would not attain such threshold, then the decision would not charge
them of plunder because it is what the law has provided.