Sandigan junks Jinggoy's bid to require Ombudsman to submit case record

The Sandiganbayan has upheld its decision denying the bid of Senator Jinggoy Estrada requiring Ombudsman prosecutors to submit its investigation records to the anti-graft court.

This is in connection with the ongoing presentation of evidence in the 11 counts of graft charges that Estrada is facing over alleged misuse of his Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF). 

In a March 12 resolution, the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division said that its January decision denying Estrada’s motion is in accordance of the requirements of Section 7(b) Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. 

The said provision only allows the transmittal of preliminary investigation records when such records will be introduced as evidence in the case by the requesting party, in this case, Estrada. That transmittal, however, is still subject to the court’s discretion “to determine the relevance and definiteness of the requested preliminary investigation record.” 

“Ordering the transmittal thereof sans any clear and compelling reason would be arbitrary. After a careful perusal of the Motion, this court is convinced that the grounds cited by the accused do not warrant the reversal of the Resolution dated January 27, 2026,” the Sandiganbayan said. 

“At this point, this court finds that the Motion [of Estrada] contains merely a reiteration of arguments already considered and passed upon at length in the assailed Resolution, thereby dispelling the need for a more in-depth discussion of the issue,” the anti-graft court added.

Estrada has argued that the transmittal of preliminary investigation records from the Ombudsman to Sandiganbayan is a necessity since it will enable his camp to conduct an effective cross-examination of witnesses and for such records to be presented as part of his defense evidence. 

The anti-graft court, however, maintained that Estrada failed to demonstrate compelling reasons to order the production of the requested preliminary investigation records as well as specify which documents from the records he requests to be transmitted. 

Likewise, the Sandiganbayan said Estrada did not explain why such documents are necessary, material, and relevant to his presentation of evidence and allege that the preliminary investigation records already included in the records of these cases are insufficient for his declared purpose. 

“In toto, the accused's assertions are vague, all-encompassing, and do not sufficiently describe the books, papers and documents that he intends to introduce as evidence. As such, the accused's Motion must be denied, and the court finds no cogent reason to disturb its earlier ruling,” the anti-graft court said. 

“Accordingly, the Motion for Reconsideration dated February 18, 2026 of Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada is denied for lack of merit. The Resolution dated January 27, 2026 is affirmed,” it added. —AOL, GMA Integrated News