Sandigan defers Estrada arraignment for perjury

The Sandiganbayan special division deferred for the third time yesterday the arraignment of jailed former President Joseph Estrada on a second perjury case.

Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Minita Nazario, chairwoman of the special division, took the move after Estrada’s lawyers led by former Sen. Rene Saguisag filed a motion to quash the case

But Estrada’s trial for the capital offense of plunder will be held today as scheduled.

Saguisag cited five main reasons in filing his 15-page motion to quash and reset arraignment.

The second perjury case stemmed from Estrada’s alleged filing of an erroneous statement of assets and liabilities (SAL) for the year 1998.

The first perjury charge was in connection with alleged misdeclaration of net worth in his 1999 SAL.

State prosecutors charged that the fallen leader committed perjury when he declared under oath his total assets at P37,385,207.08, although he had more than P57,106,201.40 in three bank deposits alone in 1998.

Saguisag maintained that the perjury case should have been incorporated with the main charge of plunder.

He claimed that the first plunder case was "dead in the water," while the second is similarly doomed.

"This case (perjury), whether as a means to commit or to conceal plunder, is part of the scheme, pattern, series or combination comprising the main case of plunder," Saguisag stated in his motion.

Saguisag noted that the information in the complaint sheet does not constitute an offense, and that the officer "who prematurely filed the information had no authority to do so."

He also alleged that the perjury case violates the principle of double jeopardy or prosecuting a person twice for the same offense since perjury forms part of the main offense of plunder.

The defense lawyer also asserted that under the law, an official who filed an "imprecise" statement should be given a chance to correct it.

"Failure to comply with the requirements on the filing of SAL on time does not render the official concerned automatically liable for any penal sanction as it allows the taking of corrective action...," Saguisag said.

"It is the refusal to take the necessary corrective action after being directed to do so which (serves) as a basis for the taking of administrative and criminal sanction against the official concerned," he added.

Saguisag argued that alleged non-compliance or under-compliance "warrants review and correction, not criminal prosecution," he argued.

He also claimed that it should have been the Civil Service Commission, not the Office of the Ombudsman which should take the first initiative in punishing the erring official.

In another development, Estrada’s lawyers filed a motion opposing a plan by the anti-graft court to conduct hearings on the plunder case three times a week.

Lawyer Jose Flaminiano said the rigors of a three-times-a week trial will lessen their effectiveness in defending their client.

He pointed out that eagerness to expedite resolution of a case "should not result in sacrificing the rights of anyone."

"We have reviewed our professional commitments to our clients whose case we agreed to handle long before we were retained by the Estradas to find out whether a happy compromise on the proposed trial dates could be attained," he told the court.