Told Jinggoy Estrada may be released, prosecutors withdraw revised rap

Senator Jinggoy Estrada. INQUIRER PHOTO/EDWIN BACASMAS

MANILA, Philippines—Facing the possibility of jeopardizing their initial finding, the special prosecution panel on Friday withdrew its motion before the Sandiganbayan for the court to admit the amended plunder charge of Senator Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada for his alleged involvement in the pork barrel scam.

The anti-graft court fifth division warned Prosecutor Danilo Lopez that amending the information would mean the court would recall their finding of probable cause to hold Estrada on trial.

This means without probable cause, Estrada would be released.

“If I were you, I would not amend the information,” Associate Justice Roland Jurado, the fifth division chairman, told the Office of the Special Prosecutor in a hearing on Friday.

“We are just warning you of the effect of the information. The accused will be released,” he added.

This is because the original information was used to find probable cause against Estrada.

“If we amend that, Estrada will be released,” Jurado said.

The prosecution panel led by Lopez suddenly turned cold feet and withdrew its motion for the court to admit the amended plunder information.

“If that is the case, we are withdrawing our manifestation of motion to amend information,” Lopez told the justices.
In an Ombudsman memorandum attached to its motion filed before the anti-graft court, the special panel under the Ombudsman said it amended the case information to make Estrada, not Janet Lim-Napoles, as the alleged mastermind of the scam.

“The introductory paragraph in each of the information may be rephrased so as to emphasize that the senator (Estrada) was the one who amassed, accumulated and acquired ill-gotten wealth in connivance or in conspiracy with his co-accused public officer and private individuals,” the memorandum read.

“The prosecutors deemed it wise to amend them to minimize, if not obviate, objections therein by certain accused which may cause undue delay in the proceedings,” it added.

According to the amended information, Estrada “(exerted) undue pressure on the implementing agencies to favorably act on his endorsements to the NGOs (non-government organizations) of Napoles…”

This was done by Estrada purportedly to “ensure that his PDAF (Priority Development Assistance Funds) be in the possession and control of Napoles and her cohorts which undue pressure and endorsements were made in exchange for kickbacks, percentage or commissions, thereby enriching himself…” according to the amended charge sheet.

Dennis Cunanan, the director general on-leave of the Technology Resource Center (TRC), has testified that Senators Estrada and Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. called him up personally so that the senator’s pork barrel funds were funneled to Napoles’ bogus foundations. TRC and other implementing agencies were tagged as the conduit of Napoles with lawmakers.

The amended information also said Estrada is a “public officer” who “by himself or in connivance with” his co-accused public officers and private individuals amassed ill-gotten wealth.

It also added that Estrada “collected directly or indirectly” not only kickbacks but even “percentages.”

The amended information sheet also said the ghost projects were not only fictitious but also “anomalous.”

The motion also wants to amend the information to say alleged mastermind Napoles and her cohorts are “private individuals” who collaborated with the senators in amassing ill-gotten wealth.

The panel also would like to delete the phrase in the case that states: “enabling Napoles to misappropriate the Priority Development Assistance Funds (PDAF) proceeds for her personal gain.”

The panel had also submitted motions to amend the plunder charge sheets of Senators Revilla and Juan Ponce Enrile. The same amendments were made in the case information of all three senators.

On Thursday’s arraignment, the anti-graft first division denied the prosecutor’s motion for the court to admit the amended information on Revilla’s case. The prosecution panel had admitted before the court that the original information can stand as sufficient information for the plunder case.

Originally posted: 9:59 am | Friday, June 27th, 2014

RELATED STORIES

Jinggoy Estrada, Napoles camps cheer over ‘vague’ ‘defective’ plunder rap

No revised rap vs Bong Revilla

Sandiganbayan to hear Friday amended plunder raps vs Estrada