Estrada trial postponed anew

The scheduled June 16 resumption of hearings for the plunder case against deposed President Joseph Estrada was reset to June 30 by the Sandiganbayan yesterday after defense lawyers asked the anti-graft court for more time to present evidence that would exculpate their client.

Chief Special Prosecutor Dennis Villa Ignacio said justices of the special division of the Sandiganbayan decided to defer the proceedings after defense lawyer Prospero Crescini asked that the trial resume next month due to time constraints. Government lawyers opposed Crescini’s request, saying any deferment should fall within this month.

Justices Minita Chico-Nazario, Edilberto Sandoval and Teresita Leonardo-de Castro scheduled the next hearing on the plunder, illegal use of alias and perjury charges against Estrada on June 30. Subsequent hearings were set for July 2 and every Monday and Wednesday thereafter.

Crescini said the deferment was reasonable, because there are still three motions raised by the defense panel that remain unresolved: defense lawyer Alan Paguia’s motion to dismiss the charges altogether and motions to cite Senior State Prosecutor Alex Padilla for contempt and for prosecutors to make a more detailed formal offer of evidence.

"Actually, they have no evidence, that’s why they could not present their defense," Villa Ignacio said, adding that this was why Estrada’s lawyers are "resorting to these dilatory tactics."

He added that the prosecution intends to elevate to the Supreme Court the Sandiganbayan’s denial of their motion to strike out Paguia’s motion, which he described as a "sham."

Crescini earlier said Estrada was "risking conviction" when he made the declaration weeks ago that he is immune from suit and that he does not have any intention to rebut the large-scale corruption charges against him.

"He is inviting conviction. It’s a long shot because, by that time, the evidence of the prosecution will be uncontradicted," Crescini said. Even if the defense panel knows the prosecution’s evidence is "weak," he added, Paguia’s motion to dismiss the cases is still a risk not worth taking.

Estrada categorically confirmed on March 23 that he does not have any intention of presenting evidence in his defense because he is still the president of the Republic of the Philippines and, therefore, immune from suit.

"There is no need to present evidence because I’m immune from suit. That’s why I don’t recognize the proceedings (in the Sandiganbayan)," Estrada said in Filipino. "I am still the legitimate president of the Republic of the Philippines. I was just unconstitutionally removed."

During the 2000 impeachment trial, Estrada and his lawyers decried that they had not been given a chance to present evidence when the proceedings were aborted in January 2001.

The defense lawyers said they could have shown documentary and testimonial evidence that would prove Estrada’s innocence.

When the charges were filed by the Ombudsman before the graft court in April 2001, Estrada’s lawyers welcomed the move because they would finally be given their day in court.

Late last month, Crescini said the defense had 50 witnesses they could present to the Sandiganbayan to testify in Estrada’s defense.