The Sandiganbayan dominated that state prosecutors had not suppressed proof within the 11 counts of graft costs filed towards Senator Jinggoy Estrada over the alleged illegal releases of his pork barrel or discretionary fund from 2008 to 2009.
In a Resolution dated March 20 however solely launched this week, the anti-graft court docket dismissed Estrada’s argument that the prosecution is suppressing proof as a result of authorities prosecutors modified their minds and would now not be presenting the next witnesses within the graft case:
- Ruby Tuason who’s the previous social secretary of Estrada’s father, former President Joseph Estrada, and an obvious affiliate of Estrada’s co-accused within the graft case, businesswoman Janet Napoles
- former Department of Budget and Management Director Carmencita Delantar
- Auditor Susan Garcia of the Commission on Audit
- Mary Arlene Joyce Baltazar (worker of JLN company owned by Napoles)
- Marina Sula (worker of JLN company owned by Napoles), and
- National Bureau of Investigation Agent Dario Sabilano.
“Senator Estrada claimed that the non-presentation of the above-mentioned witnesses is considered suppression of evidence. His stance harps on a wrong premise,” the anti-graft court docket mentioned.
“The prosecution correctly argued that it has the exclusive prerogative to determine the witnesses it wishes to present based on its assessment of their necessity,” the anti-graft court docket added.
Estrada mentioned he relied on the prosecution’s illustration in its pleadings as to the witnesses who will probably be offered, and the import of their testimonies, and that he was misled by such illustration when the prosecution determined to not current them.
In addition, Estrada mentioned he filed a movement searching for to enlist the mentioned people again as witnesses for the prosecution “to prevent the suppression of evidence tending to prove his innocence.”
The court docket, nonetheless, junked Estrada’s reasoning by citing Rule 131, Section 3.e of the Rules of Court which states that “evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced” doesn’t apply below the next circumstances:
- if the proof is on the disposal of each events;
- the suppression was not willful;
- whether it is merely corroborative or cumulative; and
- suppression is an train of a privilege.
“In the instant cases, there can be no suppression of evidence since the evidence is at the disposal of both parties. The defense may present the above witnesses as his own, or even as hostile witnesses,” the Sandiganbayan mentioned.
Further, the anti-graft court docket additionally determined to permit the prosecution to current as proof Estrada’s conferences and communications involving the ten Special Allotment Release Orders of his pork barrel, formally named Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), that are coated within the graft case.
“The evidence pertaining to the meetings and communications covered by the subject SAROs are matters of defense which should be threshed out in a full-blown trial for the Court’s appreciation,” the Sandiganbayan mentioned. — DVM, GMA Integrated News
Source: www.gmanetwork.com
