But Garchitorena flatly denied Badoy’s allegation, indicating that he could not think of any reason why his colleague would make such an accusation.
"I did not do that at all and I am wondering why he would say it," Garchitorena told The STAR in a telephone interview from Davao City. He did not elaborate.
Badoy, who is hearing the plunder case against jailed former President Joseph Estrada, clarified, however, that there was no attempt to bribe him to drop the case.
"I confirm that Presiding Justice Garchitorena is pressuring me to resign as chairman of the third division," Badoy told reporters in a hastily arranged press conference at the office of the parish priest of Fort Bonifacio in Makati City.
Badoy stressed that he would not yield to the pressure and would continue the trial of the plunder case until a decision has been reached.
"If I were giving in to the pressure, I would not be here this afternoon," Badoy said.
He declined to elaborate on the possible reasons for Garchitorena’s wanting him out of the plunder case, but promised to study the situation in the next few days.
"If you’re asking me about the motives, I can’t read the mind and heart of my superior," he said.
Badoy pointed out that while Garchitorena did not put his request in black and white, "I am not stupid enough not to understand."
Existing rules of the anti-graft court provide that the Presiding Justice has the prerogative of taking over a vacant chair in any of its divisions.
Badoy said he and his colleagues have agreed to alter the setup, allowing a senior member of the affected division to assume the chairmanship.
Under the amended scheme, Justice Teresita Leonardo-de Castro should take over the chairmanship of the third division in case Badoy steps down.
Badoy admitted, however, that there is nothing that could prevent the Presiding Justice from taking over the vacated seat.
Badoy emphasized that he would pursue the trial of the plunder case against Estrada, saying it was "God’s assignment to me to do my best for the country."
The third division resumes today its hearing of the plunder case despite protests by the defense lawyers who asserted they could not attend the proceedings.
Badoy has set continuation of the hearings every Monday, Wednesday and Thursday in an apparent attempt to speed up resolution of the capital offense of plunder case which is non-bailable and punishable by death under Philippine laws.
Badoy earlier postponed the trial after the defense lawyers filed a petition before the SC questioning the legality of the first hearing held on Oct. 1 which they boycotted, prompting the justice to appoint ex officio lawyers for Estrada and his son Jinggoy who were escorted by policemen to the court.
Apart from the Estradas and businessman Jaime Dichaves, other respondents cited in the plunder case were suspected gambling lord Charlie "Atong" Ang, lawyer Edward Serapio, accountant Yolanda Ricafort, Alma Alfaro, Eleuterio Tan and Delia Rajas.
Garchitorena came under severe criticism for barring prosecution lawyers from presenting evidence in the perjury case he was handling as chairman of the court’s first division.
In making the ruling, Garchitorena pointed out that the evidence sought to be presented by the prosecution panel through two witnesses were not mentioned in the information or charge sheet.
He even castigated the government lawyers for allegedly coming to the court ill-prepared.
"We got to do things by the book and by the number. We got to do it right if we are going to send a man to jail ... if we are going to deprive a man of his liberty, of his life, his property. It’s got to be done right," the magistrate said on national television.
"In any case that you file, please make sure that you got your facts and evidence right. Don’t come in galloping and coming out all very glamorous when you know damn well that you haven’t got the cases done right," he added.
The prosecution lawyers and other legal observers surmised that Garchitorena’s decision virtually threw out the perjury case.
The state prosecutors planned, however, to ask the Supreme Court to reverse Garchitorena’s ruling.
Ombudsman Aniano Desierto, who supervised the preparations for the cases, described Garchitorena’s order as an "injustice."
Desierto said Garchitorena practically exonerated the disgraced leader on the perjury charge.
The case stemmed from Estrada’s alleged falsification of his statement of assets and liabilities for 1999 by declaring that his net assets were at P35 million, but government lawyers insisted he had more stashed in secret bank accounts under fictitious names such as Jose Velarde.
The prosecutors were supposed to present two bank executives to testify that Estrada maintained secret accounts in their respective companies totaling P74 million.
Unfazed by their setback, the government lawyers succeeded in including Estrada ally Dichaves in the plunder case, bringing to nine the number of respondents.
On the other hand, a legal counsel of Estrada petitioned the High Tribunal to order a deferment of the hearing on the plunder case by Badoy.