Party for witnesses not basis for mistrial — Ani

A party is not a basis for a mistrial, Ombudsman Aniano Desierto said yesterday – a statement with which the court-appointed lawyer of former President Joseph Estrada agreed.

Desierto was reacting to the statement made by lawyer Raymund Fortun that a party thrown by President Arroyo for prosecution witnesses during the Senate impeachment trial of Estrada was a basis for declaring a mistrial of the plunder cases against the ousted leader now pending before the Sandiganbayan. Fortun was part of Estrada’s defense team during the impeachment proceedings.

Desierto said Malacañang’s hosting of parties for Equitable PCI Bank officials who served as prosecution witnesses, cannot be used as a basis to declare a mistrial on the five criminal cases against Estrada – including the capital crime of plunder.

In an interview, the Ombudsman said Malacañang merely expressed its happiness over the patriotism of Equitable PCI Bank officials, including the bank’s senior vice president Clarissa Ocampo, legal division chief Manuel Curato and Timog Avenue branch manager Edelquinn Nantes.

"These witnesses testified in court. The matter that they were invited (to) the Palace will not affect our cases against Estrada. Maybe Malacañang (was) overjoyed that there are patriotic people like them," Desierto added.

Estrada’s court-appointed lawyer, former Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Manuel Pamaran, concurred with Desierto. Pamaran said that under Philippine laws, a mistrial cannot be declared on the mere basis that Malacañang hosted a party for these witnesses.

"We are not yet thinking about that (filing a motion to declare a mistrial) because under Philippine jurisprudence, there is none... maybe (under) United States laws. As of now, we only believe it affects the credibility of the witnesses," Pamaran said.

In her testimony before the Sandiganbayan Special Division chaired by Associate Justice Minita Chico-Nazario, Nantes said Malacañang hosted a get-together party for all employees and officials of Equitable PCI Bank who testified at the impeachment trial against Estrada.

Fortun, who is now Estrada’s spokesman, said Malacañang’s decision to host a party for these witnesses contradicted President Arroyo’s earlier statements that the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive branch of government prevents her from intervening in any court decision regarding Estrada.

Pamaran, however, said Nantes’ admission seriously affects the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses in the criminal suits against Estrada: "Delicadeza dictates that the Equitable PCI Bank employees should not have (accepted) the (President’s) invitation and Malacañang should not have extended the invitation, considering the pendency of the cases against Estrada. It has created serious doubt (about) the credibility of the witnesses and it weakens their testimony" because it affects their motives for testifying.

Ombudsman eyes raps vs Ortaliza

Meanwhile, Desierto said the Ombudsman’s Office intends to file a motion for manifestation against Lucena "Baby" Ortaliza, a member of Estrada’s staff who admitted to having deposited money in Jose Velarde and Jaime Dichaves’ Security Bank account.

Ortaliza will be the ninth person to be accused in the Estrada plunder cases. She is also one of the Jane Does in the amended complaint sheet on plunder filed against Estrada before the Sandiganbayan.

In their earlier testimonies, former Equitable PCI Bank Ortigas branch manager Theresa Barcelona and Security Bank San Juan sales manager Pamela Moran both identified Ortaliza as the woman who made deposits in the accounts of Jose Velarde and Estrada, respectively, in their banks.

"The (bases) for filing the motion and manifestation to implead Ortaliza (are) the testimonies of (Barcelona and Moran) and the publicly known television interview where Ortaliza herself admitted she was the depositor of Estrada and Jose Velarde," Desierto said.

The Ombudsman said he will ask the graft court to subpoena the tape of the interview broadcast by the GMA-7 television network.

Pamaran, however, was quick to react with a statement that the prosecution panel is merely using "psywar (psychological warfare)" tactics to compel Ortaliza to testify against Estrada. "Including Ortaliza in the charges is uncalled for and improper, whatever the ground for the charge. Desierto is exposing the accused (to) harassment. The purpose is to convince her to testify in favor of the prosecution. The Sword of Damocles is over her head, so to speak... to avoid being charged with the offense of plunder, which is non-bailable, she has no other choice but to surrender to the whims and caprices of the prosecution panel."

Fortun, for his part, said Desierto’s move to implead Ortaliza smacks of Gestapo tactics: "It is clear that, as far as this government is concerned, it will stop at nothing in order to persecute Estrada by continuously resorting to a double standard of justice. If the witness is willing to testify against Estrada, they offer immunity; if not, they threaten to put a witness behind bars through inclusion in the plunder charge."

In a related development, the Senate minority has decided to mount an inquiry into the alleged invasion of the judiciary’s independence via this get-together party for the impeachment witnesses.

Sen. Blas Ople said the opposition will file a resolution on Monday calling for a probe, in aid of legislation, into the supposed "courting" of witnesses by the administration against Estrada and Sen. Panfilo Lacson. — With Aurea Calica