File photo of Senator Jinggoy Estrada (Joseph Vidal/Senate PRIB)
MANILA, Philippines — The Sandiganbayan Fifth Division rejected Senator Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada’s claim that evidence in his pork barrel scam case was suppressed.
According to its resolution, Estrada had sought a stipulation or an agreement that no further proof was needed for several evidence and testimonies of witnesses.
However, the prosecution said Estrada filed the instant motion as part of a plan to call the non-presentation of witnesses an instance of suppression of evidence.
The anti-graft court resolved, “the prosecution correctly argued that it has the exclusive prerogative to determine the witnesses it wishes to present, based on its assessment of their necessity,” said.
In favoring the side of the prosecution, Sandiganbayan explained, “Senator Estrada claimed that the non-presentation of the above-mentioned witnesses is considered suppression of evidence. His stance harps on a wrong premise.”
Estrada had sought a stipulation on the testimonies of several witnesses, including former Department of Budget and Management Director Carmencita Delantar.
This was after the prosecution presented them as witnesses in the plunder case, but not in the graft charge, against the lawmaker.
The senator also filed for a stipulation on several selected special allotment release orders as “the prosecution failed to present any evidence on the alleged transactions.”
The prosecution countered this, saying it had already attempted to discuss matters of stipulation with Estrada, but “unfortunately, the same were either rejected or simply ignored by him.”
Sandiganbayan ruled that “the motion for production, specification, stipulation on, and/or judicial notice of evidence on meetings and communications involving Senator Estrada is denied for lack of merit.”
However, the court stated it would take judicial notice of Estrada’s arguments, including the prosecution’s decisions whether or not to use the witnesses’ testimonies.
The resolution was made on March 20, 2023 and was recently released.
RELATED STORIES:
WHAT WENT BEFORE: Napoles and the pork barrel scam
Napoles cleared in one pork barrel case but convicted in another
Parties butt heads on Bong case: Are pork testimonies ‘facts’?