The prosecution panel has vowed to file anytime next week a written motion to disqualify the Estradas’ lawyers Cleofe Verzola, Dean Pacifico Agabin and Delia Hermoso of the Agabin Verzola Layaoen Hermoso law office.
Deputized Ombudsman prosecutor Dennis Villa-Ignacio said there was a conflict of interest on the part of the three defense lawyers because they were also "retained lawyers" of Belle Corp., the controversial company which sold in October 1999 a total of 447,650,000 shares of stock to the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) and the Social Security System (SSS).
Estrada allegedly received a P189.7-million commission from the sale.
Meanwhile, defense lawyers of the deposed president have exposed several glaring "inconsistencies and discrepancies "in the sworn testimony of prosecution witness, Willy Ng Ocier, raising doubts on his reliability as a witness in the plunder case, Partido ng Masang Pilipino (PMP) spokesman Jesus Crispin Remulla said yesterday.
Remulla cited the admission of Ocier, ex-chairman of Belle Corp., when examined by defense lawyers Jose Flaminiano and former Supreme Court Justice Serafin Cuevas, that portions of his sworn affidavit and its attached annexes were "not exact."
During cross-examination, Flaminiano asked Ocier to explain an entry in one of the annexes pertaining to the sale of 51.3 million shares of Belle Corp. and how it ended up being listed in the document, but Ocier could not explain it.
Flaminiano said Ocier then tried to wriggle his way out of the fix by insisting that his affidavit was "accurate" although one entry was "not exact."
In raising the conflict of interest issue against the three defense lawyers, Villa-Ignacio said there is a basis to believe that "a violation of (Article 209) of the revised penal code was committed by them." Article 209 of RPC is also known as the "Betrayal of Public Trust by an Attorney or Solicitor–Revelation of Secrets."
Villa-Ignacio said the members of the prosecution were amazed at the knowledge of the defense regarding the background and other information about Belle Corp. when they cross-examined Ocier.
"We wondered why the defense’s line of questioning on our witness was more detailed, until we found out that the Agabin Verzola Layaoen Hermoso law office, where some of the lawyers of Mr. Estrada are coming from, is the same law office that serves Belle Corp., so there is a suspicion on our part that these lawyers are using their closeness to the company," Villa-Ignacio said.
But the defense team maintained that the provision cited by Villa-Ignacio does not apply to them.
"Yes, we (receive) a monthly retainer from Belle, but the shares in question are not owned by Belle (but by) SSI (management)," Verzola said.
She also said that Ocier entered into the transaction between Belle Corp. and GSIS and SSS on his own personal capacity and not as an official of Belle.
Earlier, the prosecution had also questioned the appearance of former justice secretary and retired Supreme Court justice Serafin Cuevas in the defense panel. In particular, the prosecution raised serious doubts on the legality of Cuevas’ receipt of pension while appearing against the government in the plunder case.
"He has a right to his pension under the law," said Ombudsman Aniano Desierto, head of the prosecution team. "But it is his duty, the prosecution’s and this court’s, to see... that the very law which ensures the right is not violated."
Citing Section 1 of RA 910, Desierto said that "no retiring Justice during the time that he is receiving said pension shall appear as counsel before any court in any civil case wherein the government or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof is the adverse party, or in any criminal case wherein an officer or employee of the government is accused of an offense in relation to his office."
The prosecution also announced that they will move for the disqualification of Edward Serapio’s lawyer Sabino Acut, since the latter also belongs to a law firm, Tan Acut and Lopez, which also receives a retainer from Belle Corp.