Sandiganbayan: Prosecutors not suppressing evidence in Jinggoy Estrada pork scam case

The Sandiganbayan ruled that state prosecutors had not suppressed evidence in the 11 counts of graft charges filed against Senator Jinggoy Estrada over the alleged unlawful releases of his pork barrel or discretionary fund from 2008 to 2009.

In a Resolution dated March 20 but only released this week, the anti-graft court dismissed Estrada’s argument that the prosecution is suppressing evidence because government prosecutors changed their minds and would no longer be presenting the following witnesses in the graft case:

• Ruby Tuason who is the former social secretary of Estrada's father, former President Joseph Estrada, and an apparent associate of Estrada's co-accused in 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 (employee of JLN corporation owned by Napoles)
• Marina Sula (employee of JLN corporation 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 said.

“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 added.

Estrada said he relied on the prosecution’s representation in its pleadings as to the witnesses who will be presented, and the import of their testimonies, and that he was misled by such representation when the prosecution decided not to present them.

In addition, Estrada said he filed a motion seeking to enlist the said individuals back as witnesses for the prosecution “to prevent the suppression of evidence tending to prove his innocence.”

The court, however, 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” does not apply under the following circumstances:

• if the evidence is at the disposal of both parties;
• the suppression was not willful;
• if it is merely corroborative or cumulative; and
• suppression is an exercise 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 said.

Further, the anti-graft court also decided to allow the prosecution to present as evidence Estrada’s meetings and communications involving the 10 Special Allotment Release Orders of his pork barrel, officially named Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), which are covered in 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 said. — DVM, GMA Integrated News