Sandiganbayan denies Jinggoy Estrada demurrer anew on graft raps

The Sandiganbayan has upheld its earlier ruling that junked Senator Jose "Jinggoy" Estrada's demurrer to evidence and motion to dismiss the 11 counts of graft in connection with the allegedly unlawful disbursement of P183 million of Estrada’s Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) to non government entities of businesswoman Janet Napoles.

In a 22-page resolution dated October 1, the Sandiganbayan’s Special Fifth Division denied for lack of merit Estrada’s motion for reconsideration in relation to a March 26 ruling

The earlier ruling junked his demurrer to evidence and motion to dismiss the 11 counts of graft against him in connection with the alleged misuse of P183 million of his PDAF.

In its latest resolution signed by Associate Justices Zaldy Trespeses, Maryann Corpus-Manalac and Maria Theresa Mendoza-Arcega, the Sandiganbayan said it saw no reason to “disturb its findings” in its earlier ruling.

It noted that the prosecution built a prima facie case against Estrada due to his repetitive action of endorsing Napoles-run NGOs as recipients of his PDAF.

“To the court’s mind, the frequency and recurrence of his above actions, along with the totality of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and extant in the record, undoubtedly establishes a prima facie case to sustain a verdict of guilt against him at this point of the trial,” the anti-graft court said.

It added: “With the denial of his demurrer to evidence and the instant motion for reconsideration, accused Estrada is now given the chance to rebut the pieces of evidence and the prima facie case built by the prosecution against him.”

The anti-graft court maintained that the findings and conclusion of Estrada’s plunder case – where the senator was acquitted of plunder – “do not automatically warrant the dismissal of the present graft cases.”

“Judicial notice of the testimonies and evidence presented in the plunder case has already been made by the court in multiple resolutions, yet the probative weight and materiality of this evidence must still be determined anew in the present graft cases because the same must now be examined through the lens of a determination of the elements of a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019,” the Sandiganbayan said, referring to Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

It added that R.A. 3019 and R.A. 7080 or the Anti-Plunder Act are “distinct from each other and a prosecution under both laws can operate independently.”

“It is apparent to the court that what accused Estrada is truly contending, without expressly wording it as such for its obvious inapplicability, is that his acquittal in the plunder case and the continuation of the present graft cases put him in double jeopardy,” the anti-graft court said.

It added: “It is settled, however, that there is no double jeopardy when there is a variance between the elements charged.”

In addition, the Sandiganbayan cited the “explicit” testimony of prosecution witness Ruby Tuason who said he met with accused Estrada, informed him of Napoles’ scheme as early as 2004, and personally delivered amounts to him on various occasions at the Senate and his house.

The anti-graft court also cited the accounts of prosecution witness and former Napoles firms’ financial officer Benhur Luy, who told the court that the endorsement letters needed to transfer Estrada’s PDAF to the Napoles-run NGOs were signed by Estrada thru his then staff and co-accused Pauline Labayen.

The Sandiganbayan said the prosecution’s evidence showed that Estrada repeatedly pre-selected the implementing agencies where his PDAF allocation would be released and thereafter, repeatedly sent letters to the said implementing agencies to directly endorse accused Napoles’ NGOs as project implementors.

In his demurrer to evidence, Estrada sought for the dismissal of the case and claimed that the prosecution failed to prove his participation in the 11 graft cases.

He said the prosecution does not have proof that he knew of the supposed criminal scheme and that he actually met and conferred with any of the other accused regarding the PDAF projects.

Estrada also argued that his endorsement letters, which led to the release of the PDAF funds, were not directives but merely recommendations.

However, the Sandiganbayan said the senator’s insistence on the innocuousness of his endorsements “is belied by its repetition and deviation from the established procedure.”

“Estrada's endorsement letters directly implicate him for the crimes charged and there is no basis for his argument that his letters were merely recommendatory,” the anti-graft court added. — JMA, GMA Integrated News