Prosecutors urged to present Tuason, Luy at bail hearings

MANILA, Philippines - The camps of Sen. Jinggoy Estrada and alleged pork barrel fund scam mastermind Janet Lim-Napoles have dared ombudsman prosecutors to immediately present state witnesses Ruby Tuason and Benhur Luy and have them take the witness stand in the bail hearings being conducted by the Sandiganbayan.

The anti-graft court’s Fifth Division decided to stop the proceedings yesterday because of the voluminous documents that government lawyers wanted to present and mark as evidence.

Lawyer Jose Flaminiano, Estrada’s lead defense counsel, said the prosecution should go straight to the point and have Tuason, Luy and other whistle-blowers testify so that the main allegation of plunder could be challenged for the purpose of determining if there is strong evidence against the accused that would justify the denial of bail.

Estrada and Napoles arrived early and attended the hearing but they did not talk or look at each other though they were seated just one row apart.

Former President and now Manila Mayor Joseph Estrada, former senator Loi Ejercito and Jude Estrada, the senator’s brother, were also present, apparently to give moral support but they did not grant media interviews.

Flaminiano explained that bail hearings are supposed to be summary in nature, which means that it should be swift because what is being determined is not yet guilt beyond reasonable doubt but the gravity of evidence that would dictate if an accused should be granted temporary liberty or not.

“You saw the documents, if we go over that one by one, then that will take a lot of time,” he told reporters, referring to the stack of documents brought by witness Vic Tagura-Escalante, an officer of the Office of the Ombudsman’s Field Investigation Office (FIO).

Flaminiano said the prosecution, for the bail hearings, should go straight to presenting witnesses like Tuason and Luy who claim to have direct or personal knowledge of how Estrada allegedly received kickbacks and commissions from Napoles through the misuse of the lawmaker’s Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF).

Napoles’ counsel Stephen David agreed with Estrada’s lawyer, adding that only the more important matters should be presented to answer the question of whether or not the senator received money.

“Let’s attack this because our clients are in jail. The issue is if Jinggoy received money or not from Janet, that’s all. So who could tell this… Ruby? Benhur?” he said.

“We want them to be presented so the people may know if they are telling the truth or lying,” David said, noting that the defense panel is ready to confront the testimonies of Tuason and Luy as well as other whistle-blowers now enjoying immunity from suit as state witnesses.

During yesterday’s bail hearing, ombudsman lawyers placed a graft investigation and prosecution officer on the witness stand to prove, among others, how Estrada allegedly went beyond identifying projects to be funded by his PDAF.

But when Escalante started identifying documents that the prosecution said were around 1,000 in number, defense lawyers started objecting in anticipation of a long testimony that they described as hearsay, irrelevant and immaterial.

Third Division justices led by associate Justice Roland Jurado allowed the witness to testify but later agreed with Associate Justice Alexander Gesmundo’s recommendation that the hearing be adjourned to allow the prosecution and defense to talk it out and stipulate on matters that they could agree on without the need for direct testimony in court, especially in the simple identification of documents and the signatures on the same.

Flaminiano said the prosecution should speed up presentation of evidence in the bail hearings. He quoted a Supreme Court ruling that states that bail proceedings should be a brief and speedy method of determining strength of evidence for purposes of bail.

Defense lawyers also demanded that they be given a list of witnesses that the prosecution intends to present as required by the rules to which ombudsman lawyers, on orders of the Sandiganbayan, agreed to comply with.

Revilla fights suspension

Sen. Ramon Revilla Jr. asked the Sandiganbayan yesterday to junk the Office of the Ombudsman’s motion, which seeks to suspend him while undergoing trial for plunder for his alleged involvement in the pork barrel fund scam.

In an opposition filed before the anti-graft court’s First Division, he requested that the motion be denied for lack of merit primarily because the criminal complaint lodged against him is yet to be declared valid, considering his pending petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court. Revilla’s lawyers are questioning the basis for his indictment and have also asked for reconsideration of the denial of his motion for judicial determination of probable cause.

His opposition to the motion to suspend filed by ombudsman lawyers also noted that suspension pending trial is not a penalty but a mere administrative measure to prevent the accused from influencing the case, interfering with witnesses or tampering with evidence.