Senator Jinggoy Estrada. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO
MANILA, Philippines–The prosecution again flubbed its attempt to air in court on Monday the findings of the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) investigation into Sen. Jinggoy Estrada’s bank accounts in connection with the P184-million plunder case against him.
At the resumption of Estrada’s bail hearing in the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division, the defense lawyers successfully stopped AMLC investigator Orlando Negradas Jr. from testifying on the findings on the senator’s financial transactions.
Special Prosecutor Lyn Dimayuga said Negradas, who was part of the three-man AMLC team that looked into Estrada’s bank accounts, was to testify on how the council drew its conclusions about the bank transactions of Estrada and members of his family.
The prosecutors from the Office of the Ombudsman, however, were again stymied by the objections raised by defense lawyers Sabino Acut Jr. and Paul Mar Arias, who both pointed out that the information the prosecution was trying to elicit from the witness was already contained in the AMLC report.
Estrada’s lawyers also argued that the documents and other “working papers” that the AMLC used in its investigation had already been covered by a stipulation during the preliminary conference between the two parties.
“We object to the materiality of (Negradas’ testimony),” Acut told the court. “During the hearing on March 23, he already admitted that the AMLC investigation did not show the underlying transactions in the movement of funds (in Estrada’s bank accounts).”
Speaking to reporters after the hearing, an elated Estrada said he was satisfied with his lawyers’ handling of his defense.
“As you can see from the outcome of the bail hearing, even the court has noticed that the delay is caused by the prosecution and not by me or my lawyers,” the senator, who is detained at the PNP Custodial Center in Camp Crame, said.
Associate Justice Roland Jurado, Fifth Division chair, repeatedly sustained the defense panel’s objections as he directed Dimayuga to propound on issues not covered by the AMLC report.
After Dimayuga failed to follow the court’s directive to elicit information that was not in the AMLC report, the defense asked Jurado to order the termination of Negradas’ testimony.
After it failed to salvage its position, the prosecution agreed to end Negradas’ testimony.