Court fight erupts over report on Jinggoy Estrada’s bank accounts

Government and defense lawyers on Monday fought like cats and dogs before the Sandiganbayan over the presentation of the bank inquiry report pinning Senator Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada to the pork barrel scam.

The ensuing conflict compelled the Associate Justices in the antigraft court to plead to both parties to sit down and agree on the stipulation of facts lest the presentation of the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) report last for two years and unduly delay the bail proceedings.

“You should act and behave like lawyers adhering to the conduct of judicial ethics. We’re not saying you’re unethical… The court is telling the parties to sit down together and be patient,” Associate Justice Alex Gesmundo said.

“And wait for another two years… If there is no stipulation, then we’ll continue and wait for another two years,” Fifth Division chair Associate Justice Roland Jurado added.

The conflict stemmed from the prosecution’s presentation of the explosive bank inquiry report through its witness bank investigator Orlando Negradas.

The 90-page AMLC report purportedly shows how Estrada hid his wealth in his Statements of Assets Liabilities and Net worth (SALN) and how he allegedly received kickbacks through conduits from accused pork barrel scam mastermind Janet Lim-Napoles.

Prosecutor Lyn Dimayuga started the questioning on how Negradas came up with the findings that the withdrawals from the bank accounts of the bogus foundations were confirmed by Napoles .

But Estrada’s defense lawyers repeatedly objected to the prosecution’s presentation of the findings of the report, saying the report has already been submitted as evidence and that there is no need for the witness to reiterate the findings.

Government lawyers stood ground and said they should cite the findings of the report for the court to have a better understanding of its contents.

“The report speaks for itself… The report already contains the findings, which the prosecution is trying to ferret out from the witness. It’s unnecessary and redundant,” Atty. Sabino Acot said.

“The best evidence is the testimony of the witness, not the report. The findings are just reduced to this report… (The witness’ testimony) will lead to a better understanding of the court,” Atty. Maria Cristina Batacan said.

The court noted the defense team’s objections and told the prosecutors to phrase their questions to determine the basis of the report and not to jump to the findings already.

The court also acknowledged the defense panel’s argument that the AMLC report was already submitted as evidence and that the witness should instead testify on findings not yet mentioned in the report.

“You already marked the report as evidence… The report is the best evidence. You can’t ask questions which are already here in the report,” Jurado said.

Gesmundo advised the prosecutors to instead cite the bank documents used as the basis of the report instead of discussing the findings.

“The line of questioning started with the findings. That’s why they’re objecting… The court is supposed to receive evidentiary matters to establish facts. But you’re jumping the gun. You’re jumping to the conclusions,” Gesmundo said.

What the bank investigator was able to testify before the defense blocked the testimony was Estrada’s alleged use of related bank accounts of his supposed conduits Francis Yengko and Juan Ng.

“We analyzed the documents that the bank submitted and we discovered that these were transferred to several persons which we considered to be related accounts, the likes of Juan Ng, Francis Yenko, and (Jinggoy’s wife) Precy Estrada,” Negradas told the court.

Negradas said the bank investigating team verified the inflows and outflows of funds to determine the banking activities of Estrada as reflected in the report.

The bank inquiry report, the most explosive document yet pinning Estrada to the scam, detailed how Estrada’s alleged conduits Yenko and Ng received millions of alleged kickbacks from Napoles and her NGOs, and transferred these to the different bank accounts of Estrada.

The report detailed a significant mismatch in Estrada’s wealth contained in his bank accounts and declared in his SALN. All in all, Estrada’s cash in bank from 2005 to 2012 amounted to P299.2 million, compared to what was declared in his SALN at P238.6 million.

The report also said Estrada, his aide Pauline Labayen (at large for plunder), and Ng deposited millions of funds to their bank accounts around the time principal whistleblower Benhur Luy recorded in his ledger that they received their alleged kickbacks from the scam. Luy was Napoles’ entrusted finance officer.

Finally, AMLC noted that Estrada closed four (of his nine active bank accounts) with an aggregate closure balance of P76.446 million in September 2013, when the pork barrel scam investigation was ongoing and public interest in the media was high.

Estrada is accused of pocketing at least P183 million from his Priority Development Assistance Funds (PDAF) through ghost projects implemented by Napoles’ bogus foundations.