Jinggoy resorting to delaying tactics – prosecution

Chay F. Hofileña

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

Jinggoy resorting to delaying tactics – prosecution
The prosecution argues that the senator is waging a 'futile campaign' to delay proceedings and prevent Benhur Luy from presenting damaging evidence against him in the pork barrel scam

MANILA, Philippines – The camp of Senator Jinggoy Estrada appears bent on delaying proceedings at the anti-graft court Sandiganbayan to prevent the prosecution from presenting “damaging evidence.”

In an opposition filed by prosecutors led by deputy special prosecutor John Turalba, they asked the court’s 5th division, which is hearing the plunder and graft cases against Estrada, to admonish him and his defense team and to direct them to “refrain from further acts to delay” court proceedings.

On November 3, Estrada’s lawyers asked the Sandiganbayan to revoke the immunity granted to state witness Benhur Luy on grounds that he is among the “most guilty” in the pork barrel scam.

Prior to that, Estrada’s lawyers sought to suppress as evidence Luy’s digital records that showed the senator received P183 million in kickbacks from the illegal diversion of his Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF). Public funds were instead channeled to fake non-governmental organizations identified with businesswoman Janet Lim Napoles, also among Estrada’s co-accused.

In their pleading received by the Sandiganbayan on Friday, November 7, the prosecution pointed out that, by seeking to nullify Luy’s immunity agreement, Estrada simply wants to prevent one of the prosecution’s principal witnesses from “freely impart[ing] with this Court the full extent of his knowledge of matters relevant to these PDAF Cases.”

Ironically, Estrada’s camp had earlier also accused the prosecution of employing tactics that would delay a court decision on the senator’s motion to be allowed to post bail.

On Tuesday, November 11, the Supreme Court could rule on Estrada’s petition alleging that the Ombudsman violated his constitutional right to due process when his request for copies of counter-affidavits of the other respondents, new witnesses, and other filings, was denied.

Estrada ran to the SC in May 2014, alleging violation of his right to due process when the Ombudsman did not give him a copy of state witness Ruby Tuason’s testimony during the preliminary hearing. He was given a copy of the affidavit, and the case was eventually filed with the anti-graft court.

Grounds to rebuff Estrada

At the Sandiganbayan, prosecutors said Estrada is waging a “futile campaign to delay these proceedings” and prevent Luy from further damaging and undermining his “feeble defense.” The prosecution said the Court must rebuff Estrada’s delaying tactic on the basis of 3 grounds:

  • It is an improper remedy to assail the Ombudsman’s exercise of discretion in granting immunity to Luy.
  • Estrada’s invocation of Section 17, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court is not applicable to the case.
  • The Ombudsman’s exercise of prosecutorial powers – including the power to grant immunity – will not be interfered with by the courts.

The prosecution pointed out that the Sandiganbayan can decide on the Ombudsman’s exercise of discretion to grant immunity “only in cases where the prosecution moves for the discharge of a co-accused to be a state witness.”

They argued that because Luy was not named as a respondent during the preliminary investigation, he was never put under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as a co-accused. Luy was, from the very start, a whistleblower and did not need to be discharged as a co-accused.

Ombudsman’s prerogative

Furthermore, determining immunity is a prerogative of the prosecution that, according to law, can be exercised only by the Ombudsman. This can be modified or reversed by the courts only in extraordinary cases and on exceptionally meritorious grounds, the prosecutors said.

They also argued that Estrada’s plea for judicial intervention requires him to prove grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman, which is an independent constitutional body “beholden to no one, acts as the champion of the people and the preserver of the integrity of the public service.”

Even the Supreme Court acknowledges the limits of its power to review the Ombudsman’s decision to grant immunity. It previously said, “Our room for intervention only occurs when a clear and grave abuse of the exercise of discretion is shown.”

Prosecution’s discretion

Luy cannot, “by any stretch of the imagination” be the most guilty in the PDAF scam, the prosecution said. As a mere employee of Napoles, he simply followed what his principal directed him to do. It was Luy’s superior, acting together with her co-conspirators, who “conceived of the unlawful plan and set the same in motion.”

The grant of immunity to Luy was therefore an exercise in “prosecutorial discretion, trial strategy, and factual determination,” the prosecution said.

The Ombudsman, therefore – more than the defense or the Sandiganbayan – is in a better position to determine the strength or weakness of evidence in Luy’s possession and the “kind, tenor, and source of testimony he needs to enable him to prove his case.”

Likewise, determining if Luy is the most guilty is a judgment that the Ombudsman, more than the defense, can make. It is the Ombudsman that knows the needs of the prosecution and eyes the interests of the people’s case.

The prosecution asked the anti-graft court to dismiss Estrada’s motion to review and nullify the immunity granted to Luy. They said it is an improper remedy, and the Sandiganbayan lacks jurisdiction over the matter. They also sought the denial of Estrada’s motion for lack of merit.

Earlier, Estrada’s lead counsel Jose Flaminiano accused Luy of being a fabricator who has shown “no remorse,” repentance, or regret.

Estrada is charged with plunder and 11 counts of graft for his alleged misuse of P278 million (over $6.2 million) of his PDAF and his alleged pocketing of P183 million (over $4.08 million) in the form of kickbacks. Rappler.com

Add a comment

Sort by

There are no comments yet. Add your comment to start the conversation.

Summarize this article with AI

How does this make you feel?

Loading
Download the Rappler App!
Avatar photo

author

Chay F. Hofileña

Chay Hofileña is editor of Rappler's investigative and in-depth section, Newsbreak. Among Rappler’s senior founders and editors, she is also in charge of training. She obtained her graduate degree from Columbia University’s School of Journalism in New York.