Arraignment of Estrada, Jinggoy set May 17

Jailed ex-President Joseph Estrada will be arraigned as scheduled on May 17 after the Sandiganbayan denied his motion to remand the perjury charge against him to the Office of the Ombudsman for reinvestigation.

This developed as the anti-graft court’s fifth division, chaired by Associate Justice Minita Nazario, allowed the Ombudsman to withdraw its charge that Estrada intervened in a government probe on the stock price manipulation scandal involving listed gaming firm Best World Resources Corp.

The Ombudsman wanted to withdraw five of the eight charges filed against Estrada ostensibly because it wanted to concentrate on the main charge of plunder.

The fifth division said it was not persuaded to deny the motion outright because "our procedural laws allow the prosecution to rectify its mistake (of hastily and precipitately filing the cases) by withdrawing the case."

The ruling resulted in the withdrawal of two charges against Estrada with two more charges unresolved.

On Wednesday the fourth division rejected the Ombudsman’s appeal to conso-lidate the perjury charge against Estrada with the plunder case.

But in a resolution penned by Associate Justice Rodolfo Palattao, the fourth division also denied Estrada’s motion to remand the perjury charge, which would have further delayed his trial.

Aside from Palattao, the fourth division also includes Associate Justice Narciso Nario as chairman and Associate Justice Nicodemio Ferrrer.

In his ponencia, Palattao said there is no need to remand the perjury charge because the ex-president was given ample time to submit his counter-affidavit to disprove it.

"There is no denial of procedural due process where a party has been given the opportunity to be heard," Palattao wrote, noting that Estrada was given 10 days to answer the charges.

Estrada even asked for 30 days to submit his counter-affidavit but the Ombudsman only allowed him a five day extension.

"Yet, instead of filing his counter-affidavit, he went to the Supreme Court on a petition for prohibition. He cannot, therefore, be heard to complain that his right to due process has been denied where he himself chose not to avail of the opportunity ... to answer the charges," the ruling read.

The perjury charge stems from Estrada’s alleged misdeclaration of his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) for the year ending Dec. 31, 1999, where he pegged his net worth at P35.9 million.

He also claimed he only had corporate holdings in JELP Real Estate and Development Corp., JE Inc. and Feluisa Development Corp.

But the Ombudsman claims Estrada actually had cash of some P1,117,185,811 deposited in a bank as well as undeclared corporate holdings in St. Peter’s Holding Co., Erap Muslim Youth Foundation Inc. Fountainbleu Holdings Co., Verdant Resources Co., and VFC Realty and Development Corp.

The Ombudsman had earlier wanted to consolidate the perjury charge with the plunder charge purportedly because they were "inter-related."

But Ombudsman prosecutor Humphrey Monteroso failed to convince the court that consolidation of the perjury charge with the plunder case would "conserve the resources and efforts of the Court, the prosecution, defense and accused."

While Monteroso maintained that perjury was not an element of the plunder case, he said the prosecution would be presenting the same witnesses in these two cases.

Ferrer however said Monteroso was contradicting the contention of Ombudsman Aniano Desierto who earlier said the perjury rap was based on evidence distinct from that of plunder.

Palattao, for his part, questioned the Ombudsman’s motives in seeking the consolidation of the perjury with the plunder case and hinted the move may be due to the Ombudsman’s supposed desire to choose which magistrate will try the case.

Nario, on the other hand, noted inconsistencies in Monteroso’s contention that the same witnesses would be presented in both the perjury and plunder cases as shown by the criminal information the Ombudsman filed with the court. — Jose Rodel Clapano