Prosecution’s ‘blunder’ will prolong plunder trial, says former DOJ chief

Senators Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada and Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. AP FILE PHOTO

MANILA, Philippines—At the very least, the government prosecutors could expect a longer legal battle following their two failed attempts to amend plunder charges against Senators Ramon “Bong” Revilla and Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada, which lawmakers said gave the impression that they were ill-prepared for the high-profile cases.

Still, all is not lost, according to 1BAP party list Representative Silvestre Bello, a former justice secretary, who said the fate of the criminal charges would still rise or fall on the basis of the evidence the prosecutors could present in court.

But by trying to change the main theory of their plunder cases, the prosecutors gave the accused senators’ defense team the ammunition to question the cases and prolong the trial, and to boost their claim that the filing of charges was rushed in order to harass them, said Bayan Muna Representative Neri Colmenares.

The proposed amendments would have made the senators the central figures in  the theft of hundreds of millions of pesos in pork barrel funds instead of businesswoman Janet Lim Napoles. The prosecutors withdrew their motion following warnings from magistrates that this could lead to the recall of the arrest warrants for the senators.

Bello said it was too early to say the case is lost, despite the initial setback, because the outcome would depend on the evidence.

“In the end, what matters is the evidence they are able to present. That is what is important here, to prove the accused took advantage of the PDAF and were able to obtain illegally the amount beyond P50 million,” Bello said in a phone interview.

But Bello also noted that the attempt to amend the charge sheet gave the impression that what the prosecutors filed in the first place was incorrect, although he noted that making substantial changes was a fairly normal occurrence if there was newly discovered evidence that could affect the nature of the case.

“The impression is, they made a mistake. In the first round, the defense got the upper hand. So they have to recover,” he said.

He also noted that the prosecutors, when asked by the Sandiganbayan justices, maintained the cases could stand even without amending the charges.

Speaker Feliciano Belmonte also believes the strength of the case remains even if things do not look good for the prosecution at present.

“I really don’t know what they were trying to do. But certainly it didn’t look good insofar as public perception of their ability is concerned. I think the merits of the case and evidence are unchanged,” Belmonte said in a text message.

Colmenares was baffled by the prosecutors’ move to amend the charges shortly before the senators’ arraignment, especially since it took a while before the cases were filed in court, leading people to believe these were less than meticulously prepared.

The prosecutors withdrew the amendments when these were questioned by the justices, but this will still have an adverse impact on the case because the accused will use this to their advantage, he said.

“The trial will be prolonged…. As it is, they have to pass through the plunder law and the anti-graft law. With this development, the trial will probably take longer to finish because objections will be raised along the way,” Colmenares said in a telephone interview.

The proposed amendments were substantial and it was not as if these were based on newly discovered evidence, he added.

“Did it weaken the case? Yes, it gave the defense a lot of grounds for objections. You expose the weakness of the information and it’s so substantial. This is a big thing because they were even forced to move for the amendment and the basis for it is the theory [of the case],” he said.

He added that the defense would also use this to claim that the filing of the cases was intended to harass them.

“How can you make that mistake which will jive with the theory of the defense that the cases were rushed to get them?” Colmenares added.

Still, he said, the outcome of the case would depend on what would happen in the trial, and on what evidence would be brought up.

What the prosecutors could do is to prepare for the defense’s attacks on their case.

“They should try their best to argue it well…. The best thing is to anticipate the questions to be raised by the defense and to be ready with their answers,” Colmenares said.

The prosecutors should also expect that the case may be challenged before the Supreme Court, he said.

For, Bayan Muna Rep. Carlos Zarate, government prosecutors should have insisted on the amendment of their charges against the senators before the latter’s arraignment if they really believed there was a need to strengthen the cases.

Zarate  said the prosecution’s attempt to change the theory of the cases exposed their vulnerability, wittingly or unwittingly.

To ensure better handling of the pork barrel cases, he said, officials at the Office of the Ombudsman and the Department of Justice should ensure there would be a team of full-time special investigators and prosecutors handling these cases.

Revilla’s lawyer has seized on the motion to amend the information to insist that the plunder and graft charges against his client have no basis and their arrest warrants should be recalled.

Revilla and Estrada are currently detained for plunder for the alleged embezzling of their pork barrel funds. A similar case has been filed against Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile, though the court handling the matter has yet to issue a warrant for his arrest.

RELATED STORY

Strike 2 vs gov’t lawyers