Senator Jinggoy Estrada. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO/LYN RILLON
MANILA, Philippines–For the nth time, the prosecution was floored on Monday by the lawyers of detained Sen. Jinggoy Estrada who questioned the way prosecutors from the Office of the Ombudsman handled the testimony of an official of the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC).
After being blocked by the defense panel several times, the prosecution was finally able to present to the witness stand AMLC bank investigator Orlando Negradas Jr., who led the investigation into Estrada’s financial transactions in relation to the P10-billion pork barrel racket.
But the government lawyers failed to capitalize on Negradas’ testimony as they stumbled to find a way to discuss the findings contained in the 90-page report of the AMLC at the continuation of Estrada’s bail hearing in the antigraft court’s Fifth Division.
In his direct examination handled by Director Lyn Dimayuga, Negradas said the council first looked into the transactions of two bogus foundations which suspected fund scam mastermind Janet Lim-Napoles allegedly used to siphon off Estrada’s Priority Development Assistance Fund.
‘Underlying business’
The AMLC official said the investigation also covered the bank accounts purportedly owned by Estrada, his relatives and his alleged conduits as approved by the Court of Appeals.
However, Negradas admitted that the AMLC could not determine the “underlying business” behind every bank transactions which the council had verified.
When Dimayuga tried to elicit information about the AMLC’s findings, lawyer Sabino Acut, one of Estrada’s counsels, stood up and objected to Dimayuga’s questions.
“The answers (to the prosecution’s questions) are already contained in the report which is already marked. The best evidence is the report itself,” Acut argued.
But Director Ma. Christina Batacan pointed out that the prosecution was merely trying to help the court better understand the issues discussed in the AMLC report.
Finding merit in the arguments raised by the defense, the three-member Fifth Division sustained the various objections raised by Estrada’s lawyers.
In several instances, an exasperated Associate Justice Alexander Gesmundo had to help the prosecutors formulate their questions as he reminded them that the “best evidence is the document itself.”
Delayed proceedings
He also told Batacan that the court was mindful of the information written in the report, adding that the justices were more interested in finding the facts of the case rather than the testimony of the witness.
“You cannot ask questions which are already in the report. You should ask specific questions starting with what documents they (AMLC investigators) examined,” Gesmundo told Dimayuga.
Associate Justice Roland Jurado, Fifth Division chair, shared Gesmundo’s observation that the delay in the proceedings was caused by the refusal of both the prosecution and the defense to stipulate certain documents, which would be presented as evidence against Estrada.
Speaking with reporters after the hearing, Estrada said the government lawyers are trying “to delay and drag this bail hearing which should be summary in nature.”