Arroyo changes lawyers in plunder raps | Inquirer News

Arroyo changes lawyers in plunder raps

/ 06:50 AM January 03, 2014

Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO

MANILA, Philippines—Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has lost the services of her lead lawyer in the plunder case she is facing before the Sandiganbayan.

Lawyer Anacleto Diaz and the Diaz Del Rosario & Associates law firm informed the antigraft court’s First Division in writing last Dec. 26 that they were withdrawing from appearing in court on Arroyo’s behalf.

Article continues after this advertisement

Diaz did not cite the reason for his and his law firm’s withdrawal and did not answer calls from reporters.

FEATURED STORIES

They were replaced by lawyer Modesto Ticman Jr. and the Gilera & Ticman law firm, which entered their appearance as new defense counsels for Arroyo last Dec. 19.

Diaz’s law firm furnished the court with an acknowledgment receipt signed by Ticman’s law firm for the turnover of the documents and evidence for four cases that Arroyo is facing in the antigraft court.

Article continues after this advertisement

Meanwhile, Ticman has asked the court to be given until Jan. 5, 2014, to file their reply to the prosecution’s opposition to the motion for reconsideration of the court’s decision denying Arroyo’s petition for bail, which the former president filed last Dec. 3.

Article continues after this advertisement

Ticman said his legal team needed more time to scrutinize the records of the case and that the motion for an extension was not intended to delay the proceedings.

Article continues after this advertisement

Arroyo, who represents Pampanga’s second district in the House of Representatives, was charged with plunder by the Office of the Ombudsman in July last year for allegedly diverting public funds amounting to P366 million from the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) “for personal gain.”

Arroyo has asked the Supreme Court to stop the Sandiganbayan from hearing the PCSO plunder case arguing that the antigraft court “acted with precipitate haste” when it issued two resolutions without giving her the opportunity to file motions for judicial determination of probable cause.

Article continues after this advertisement

The high court has yet to act on the petition.—Cynthia D. Balana

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

TAGS: court, Plunder, Politics

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

© Copyright 1997-2024 INQUIRER.net | All Rights Reserved

This is an information message

We use cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more here.