Looks like Sen. Jinggoy Estrada is not exactly safe with the Sandiganbayan on the alleged misuse of his discretionary public funds or pork barrel after the court rejected his plea to dismiss his remaining graft charges for lack of merit.
In a 22-page resolution dated Oct. 1, the anti-graft court’s Special Fifth Division said there was ‘no cogent reason’ to reverse its earlier resolution that denied Estrada’s plea for a demurrer to evidence, which would ultimately dismiss his remaining graft charges involving the alleged misuse of his Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) amounting to more than P200 million.
The funds were allegedly diverted to fictitious livelihood projects that were endorsed to non-government organizations allegedly owned by businesswoman Janet Lim-Napoles, who has had numerous convictions over the supposed misuse of the pork barrel funds.
Estrada, in his motion for reconsideration cited by the court, argued that there should not be any prosecution for graft since there was already a prosecution against him for plunder from the ‘same set of facts and the same set of transactions.’
His motion also took note of the ‘similarity’ between the two sets of indictments wherein the prosecution in both cases ‘presented essentially the same set of exhibits and the same set of witness testimonies to prove the same theory, albeit to prosecute separate sets of crimes.’
But the court rejected his argument, saying there was nothing in the Rules of Court or the laws allegedly violated that there was a directive to dismiss a separate case for graft ‘on account of the charge being a predicate act in a prior case for plunder.’
‘The only reason to sustain such an argument would be if the same places the accused in double jeopardy, which is not the case herein, as shall be discussed by the court later,’ read the resolution signed by Associate Justice Zaldy Trespeses, the division chair; and Associate Justices Maryann Corpus-Mañalac and Maria Theresa Mendoza-Arcega.
Defense evidence
The court then set the presentation of defense evidence on Thursday at 8:30 a.m., with Estrada being given a period of five days from receipt of the resolution to file a manifestation if he prefers to cross-examine the defense’s witnesses or adopt his co-accused’s testimony or evidence.
The court also rejected Estrada’s argument that the prosecution failed to prove the element of scienter, wherein an accused acted with the illegality of the acts or with reckless disregard for truth.
Estrada said in his motion that he never knew of the supposed criminal scheme of Napoles with her NGOs, that he met and conferred with any of the other accused regarding the PDAF projects or that he dealt with any of the whistleblowers.
‘While it would be premature at this stage to delve into the probative value of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the court notes that the prosecution has formally offered, and the record contains, the explicit testimony of witness Ruby Tuason,’ the court said.
According to the Sandiganbayan, Tuason had testified that she met with Estrada and informed him of Napoles’ scheme as early as 2004 and that she personally ‘delivered amounts to him on various occasions’ at the Senate and his residence.
‘Estrada’s insistence on the innocuousness of his endorsements is belied by its repetition and deviation from the established procedure,’ the court pointed out. ‘Estrada’s endorsement letters directly implicate him for the crimes charged and there is no basis for his argument that his letters were merely recommendatory.’