Former Sen. Jinggoy Estrada. FILE PHOTO
If it wasn’t former Senator Jinggoy Estrada, who are the “main plunderers” in his P183.79-million case then?
For the recently-freed politician, they are “none other than Benhur K. Luy and Marina C. Sula,” two of Janet Lim-Napoles’s employees who turned into whistleblowers.
Estrada issued the statement in objecting to the Ombudsman’s appeal questioning the Sandiganbayan’s September 15 resolution that allowed him to post bail for plunder.
In a 19-page opposition, Estrada said the Fifth Division correctly ruled that the prosecution’s failure to show he was the “main plunderer” of his pork barrel funds weakened the case and entitled him to the right to post bail.
The defense said the prosecution evidence “tends to show that Sen. Estrada was not a participant to such supposed conspiracy at its inception and, also, had no participation until the end.”
Instead, Estrada described Luy and Sula as the “persons who were at the very center of all the activities of the supposed conspiracy” to pocket his Priority Development Assistance Fund proceeds.
He said the two were the ones who organized the non-government organizations, coordinated with the Department of Budget and Management, dealt with the implementing government agencies, encashed the checks, prepared the liquidation documents, met with the alleged middlemen, and distributed the kickbacks.
“Sen. Estrada is not the central figure insofar as the supposed scheme involving the PDAF allocation is concerned,” the opposition read.
Arroyo doctrine applicable
Estrada also disagreed with the Ombudsman’s contention that the Supreme Court’s controversial July 2016 acquitting former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo should not have been applied to his case.
In the Arroyo ruling, the SC laid down the precedent that imposed an additional requirement for prosecutors to pinpoint a “main plunderer” in a scheme to pocket public funds.
Special Prosecutor Edilberto Sandoval admitted in a Sept. 18 press briefing that the Arroyo ruling and its subsequent application in Estrada’s case would have “adverse effects” in the prosecution of plunder cases.
But, Estrada in his opposition argued the Ombudsman’s Sept. 25 motion for reconsideration made “absolutely no effort” to distinguish his plunder case from Arroyo’s P366-million Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office intelligence fund case.
He said the Sandiganbayan should not heed the Ombudsman’s attempt to goad it into “shirking its responsibility to adhere to judicial precedents” of the Supreme Court.
‘Scam went on without Estrada’
Applying the Arroyo doctrine, the defense maintained the pork barrel scam was carried out “even without the participation of Sen. Estrada,” so he could not have been the “main plunderer.”
It noted the testimony of prosecution witness Ruby Tuason who claimed Estrada initially refused to meet businesswoman Janet Lim-Napoles in 2004 and only met her in 2008.
Estrada also noted the prosecution only presented endorsement letters in 2008 for the diversion of his PDAF to the dubious NGOs linked to Napoles.
For him, this meant he could not have taken part in a conspiracy that allegedly took place from 2004 to 2012.
Even his endorsement of the NGOs was “not the ultimate step” to consummate the scheme to plunder his pork barrel funds, Estrada claimed. He added his selection of the Napoles-linked NGOs did not show he “had foreknowledge of any irregularity.”
He noted his endorsement letters contained instructions to comply with accounting and auditing rules and ensure the proper implementation of what now turned out to be ghost projects.
“These cannot be taken to mean as a directive towards the commission of any wrong or irregularity,” Estrada argued.
He also said the prosecution had no proof that he indeed received the kickbacks Luy said were intended for him.
Prior to the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division’s 3-2 ruling in Estrada’s favor, the actor-politician spent three years detained at the Philippine National Police custodial center since the pork barrel charges were filed against him and former Senators Juan Ponce Enrile and Bong Revilla in June 2014.
The Ombudsman originally harped on the point that Estrada’s September 2016 bail motion was a prohibited second appeal on an earlier failed bail petition.
The Fifth Division in January 2016 initially found the prosecution evidence strong enough to keep denying Estrada the right to temporary liberty, and denied an appeal that May. But, the Supreme Court’s July 2016 ruling in Arroyo’s case encouraged Estrada to try seeking bail again.