One of the three Sandiganbayan Fifth Division justices opposed the dropping of plunder and graft charges against former Department of Public Works (DPWH) chief Manuel Bonoan.
This was established after prosecutors from the Office of the Ombudsman filed on June 29 a Motion for Leave to File Amended Information to discharge Bonoan from the two cases.
The opposition became known as the anti-graft body accepted Bonoan’s offer to be a state witness to testify against several personalities implicated in the multibillion flood control corruption scandal.
Bonoan was a co-accused of Sen. Jinggoy Estrada.
The senator faces a plunder case stemming from alleged ‘intricate mechanism involving illegal budgetary insertions and project allocations’ within the DPWH infrastructure portfolio for fiscal year 2025 worth P573 million, according to prosecutors.
Only former DPWH Assistant District Engineer Denryl Caesar Cortuna and district engineers Manny Bulusan and Arturo Gonzales Jr. remain as Estrada’s co-accused in his plunder case.
The justice’s opposition reflects the outcome of the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division’s 2-1 vote granting the prosecution’s motion as explained in a 29-page resolution dated Sept. 1 published in its official website on Wednesday.
Associate Justice Zaldy Trespeses, the Fifth Division chairperson, and Associate Justice Maryann Corpuz-Mañalac voted to grant the prosecution’s motion, while Associate Justice Gener Gito was the lone dissenting vote.
In his 32-page dissenting opinion, Gito noted that the court ‘is kept in the dark’ as to how Bonoan would cooperate with the government, what information he would relay to the prosecution, what his testimony would be, and in which cases his testimony would be used.
‘What the prosecution wants the court to do is simply accept its justification for discharging Bonoan from the information hook, line and sinker,’ Gito observed.
The Fifth Division resolution, however, noted that ‘the decision to move for the discharge of an accused is part of the Ombudsman’s prosecutorial discretion in the determination of who should be used as a state witness to bolster the successful prosecution of criminal offenses.’
‘Unless made in clear violation of the Rules, this determination should be given great weight as courts do not, as a rule, have a vision of the true strength of the prosecution’s evidence until after the trial is over,’ the resolution said.
Gito, however, has a different position.
He stated: ‘Yes, the Office of the Ombudsman enjoys broad discretion in the investigation and prosecution of offenses within its authority, including the determination of whom to prosecute and whom to utilize as witnesses for the State. This discretion, however, is not absolute.’
‘Thus, while prosecutorial discretion remains entitled to appropriate respect, it does not displace the court’s authority and duty to determine whether the relief sought is legally and factually warranted, with due regard to the procedural posture of the case and the substantial rights of the accused,’ he explained.
Estrada, Cortuna, Bulusan and Gonzales opposed the motion, as they noted that Bonoan’s discharge would affect their defense.
The original case information stated that Estrada -and – Bonoan caused, facilitated or ensured the inclusion of the questioned projects in the national budget.
However, the amended case information now only alleges that accused Estrada acted ‘by himself and/or through’ Bonoan.
Still, the majority of the Fifth Division finds that the accused ‘are not deprived of their defense as they may still deny any conspiracy or agreement between themselves or as between accused Estrada and Bonoan.’
‘They shall also be fully afforded the opportunity to cross-examine accused Bonoan and impeach his testimony during trial,’ they noted.
In their oppositions, Cortuna, Bulusan and Gonzales noted that the allegations contained in the original information was already read to them during arraignment, of which they pleaded not guilty.
For his part, Gito said, with the court granting of motion, the three accused ‘would be compelled to reassess defenses and evidence prepared in response to the original accusations.’
‘Rather than merely stating with greater precision a fact already alleged, the amendment introduces an alternative theory of participation and requires the other arraigned accused to confront factual allegations materially different from those to which they originally pleaded,’ the justice pointed out.
Gito recognizes the prosecutors’ ‘laudable’ goal to prosecute more culprits through Bonoan’s cooperation, but he maintained that their move is still ‘procedurally flawed.’
‘While the undersigned recognizes the prosecution’s laudable desire to prosecute those responsible for what is perceived to be the greatest larceny in the government coffers, such prosecution must, nevertheless, be pursued in accordance with the Rules, with due regard for the rights of the accused, and without encroaching upon judicial prerogative,’ he explained.
Gito thinks the prosecution cannot demand Bonoan’s discharge as a matter of right, and, instead, should have asked for a motion for leave of court, and the ex-DPWH chief discharge from cases based on the court’s judgment.
The prosecutors said the accused are expected to file a motion for reconsideration on the court resolution.
Meanwhile, as for Bonoan’s discharge from hospital arrest, the office of Fifth Division Clerk of Court said the release order may be issued on Thursday.
Bonoan, 81, is detained at Philippine National Police General Hospital in Camp Crame as he is suffering from chronic renal disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, gouty arthritis, spinal condition called spondylolisthesis, and prostate cancer.
Assistant Ombudsman Mico Clavano admitted that it was a ‘tough’ decision to drop Bonoan from the case.
However, Clavano said the anti-graft body considered his age and several illnesses before its prosecutors filed a motion to discharge him from cases, the gravest of which is plunder, whose punishment is reclusion perpetua or a prison sentence of up to 40 years.
‘If Bonoan was convicted of plunder for 40 years, do you think he would last until 120 years old inside prison?’ Clavano had asked in a press conference in late June.