NBI to include more evidence, respondents in Jinggoy Estrada plunder complaint

The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) has moved to submit additional evidence and respondents in the plunder complaint filed against Senator Jinggoy Estrada with the Department of Justice (DOJ), Justice spokesperson Polo Martinez said Monday.

According to Martinez, the panel of prosecutors gave the NBI until February 26, Thursday to furnish the respondents with copies of the additional evidence.

Meanwhile, the respondents will have until March 9, Monday to submit their counter-affidavits.

“At today’s scheduled setting for preliminary investigation, Senator Jinggoy Estrada did not file his counter-affidavit because he was given until March 9 to do so,” Martinez said.

“This comes following a motion by the NBI as a complainant to submit additional evidence as well as additional respondents to the case,” he added.

The complaint is for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, plunder, direct bribery and receiving gifts by public officers, and corruption of public officers.

Estrada’s co-respondents are former Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Secretary Manuel Bonoan, former DPWH Undersecretary Roberto Bernardo, former DPWH Regional Director Gerard Opulencia, former DPWH district engineer Henry Alcantara and John and Jane Does.

According to DOJ spokesperson Atty. Polo Martinez, the plunder complaint is not confined to a single project or locality. Instead, it covers allegations of the acquisition of ill-gotten wealth amounting to more than P50 million, allegedly obtained through a combination or series of transactions.

Last week, Bonoan filed his counter-affidavit on the plunder complaint.

A Manila court has also issued a precautionary hold departure order against Estrada and his co-respondents, saying that there is probable cause to believe that respondents will depart from the country to evade arrest and prosecution.

When asked if the additional respondents will be included in the PHDO, Martinez said that it must first be determined if the additional respondents are a flight risk.

“Syempre, ang tanong is are they a flight risk. Kasi ‘yun naman po ang batayan ng pag apply ng PHDO na susuriin ng huwes in court. So that’s a matter that the court will have to decide,” he said.

(Of course, the question is are they a flight risk. Because that is the basis in applying a PHDO that the court must evaluate. So that’s a matter that the court will have to decide.)

“We’ll have to wait and see if the prosecutors move for the filing of a PHDO in court,” he added.—RF/JMA, GMA Integrated News