Sandigan won’t let Jinggoy go to US

The Sandiganbayan denied yesterday the request of former San Juan mayor Jinggoy Estrada to bring his family to the United States for a vacation.

Justices Minita Chico-Nazario, Edilberto Sandoval and Teresita Leonardo de Castro didn’t buy the argument of the son of deposed President Joseph Estrada — who is out on bail for plunder charges — that he has no intention to evade prosecution.

In a three-page resolution, the Sandiganbayan’s special division described as a "lame argument" the young Estrada’s assurance, made under oath and before the witness stand, that he won’t flee considering his stature in society and that his roots are in the country.

The anti-graft court held that the travel request was "not urgent" as to merit an approval.

"Holding an accused in a criminal case within the reach of the courts by preventing his departure from the Philippines must be considered a valid restriction on his right to travel so that he may be dealt with in accordance with the law," it stated.

The Sandiganbayan also ruled that learning the culture of another race does not necessarily entail physical travel, saying there are other ways to study foreign culture. "There are ample ways a person can enrich himself with the history and culture of another country without going to that country physically," it said.

"There are ways a person can travel without leaving his motherland. The court need not elaborate," it added.

A positive development for Jinggoy, though, was that the anti-graft court upheld its March 7 decision allowing him to post bail for P500,000.

In a six-page resolution, the jurists said that since government prosecutors "failed to prove" that the evidence against Jinggoy was strong enough to deny him his temporary liberty, then bail necessarily "becomes a matter of right."

"Without conspiracy, the accused are liable only for their own acts," the justices said in the resolution, adding that they "don’t share" government lawyers’ theory that Jinggoy was a separate and therefore independent principal from his father.

"Making Jinggoy a participant in these other acts (other offenses listed in the charge sheet) despite his non-inclusion in the information which gave this court the jurisdiction, would violate Jinggoy’s constitutional right to be informed of the charges against him," the resolution said.

In a separate concurring opinion, Sandoval pointed out that "the prosecution’s evidence has not particularly identified who are the principals by direct participation" in the plunder case against the ex-president.

"Could they be Charlie ‘Atong’ Ang, Yolanda Ricaforte, Edward Serapio or somebody who has not been charged? Who are the persons arranging the collection, doing the collection and delivering the money with whom Jinggoy conspired? These are not at all clear from prosecution’s proofs," Sandoval wrote.