Crescini is one of Estrada’s four court-appointed lawyers.
"We commiserate with Attorney Crescini’s dilemma," the anti-graft court’s special division stated in its three-page resolution.
The resolution said the Sandiganbayan accepted the 73-year-old lawyer’s reasons for his request, among them his "continuing personal and professional losses, (and) failing health."
Another reason cited by Crescini is his "irreconcilable differences" with Alan Paguia, Estrada’s personal lawyer, with regards to personal ethics.
"I cannot be effective. If my motion (to be relieved as counsel de officio) is denied, I will not proceed even in the face of contempt. I’m glad to have participated in this trial of the century," he told the anti-graft court.
The Sandiganbayan clarified that they are "inclined" to grant Crescini’s request, provided the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) "designates a suitable lawyer as replacement." The replacement, however, has to be approved by the anti-graft court’s justices and the lawyer concerned should "accept the appointment."
"The IBP, through its board of convenors, is hereby directed to designate for appointment by this court a counsel de officio for Estrada and Jinggoy Estrada to assist the court-appointed counsels," the Sandiganbayan said.
Crescini’s former colleagues — retired Sandiganbayan justice Manuel Pamaran, Irene Jurado and Noel Malaya — were directed by the Sandiganbayan "not to tolerate any attempts at delaying the proceedings for reasons of lack of familiarity of the soon to be appointed counsel de officio."
Crescini, Pamaran, Malaya and Jurado were appointed by the Sandiganbayan after Estrada fired all his personal lawyers in February 2002, shortly after he admitted to broadcast journalist Pia Hontiveros that he indeed signed the alias Jose Velarde on the documents for a P500 million trust account he opened at Equitable PCI Bank.
Estrada, a former movie star, theoretically faces the death penalty if convicted on charges of plunder, illegal use of an alias, and perjury. He is accused of plundering a personal fortune of up to $80 million during his 30 months in power.
Crescini, who has been a lawyer for the last 46 years, earlier told the justices of the Sandiganbayan’s special division that he could not bear the statements made by Paguia.
Estrada’s lawyer of choice had declared that the defense will not present evidence to exculpate his client, as this would be inconsistent with their position that the court has no jurisdiction over the case.
"It’s prejudicial and dangerous," Crescini said, adding that the unconventional tactic to waive Estrada’s defense is "irreconcilable" with his beliefs.
Estrada "has the opportunity to clear his name. This is what the public has long been waiting for. All of these chances to explain would be lost (if the defense does not present evidence)," he added.
Crescini noted that "without being optimistic, I’m very positive we can get an acquittal. I will bet my last shirt we can win this case. We have so many witnesses."
He earlier said Estrada’s defense panel has no less than 50 witnesses to destroy the testimonies made by former Ilocos Sur governor Luis "Chavit" Singson and Equitable PCIBank official Clarissa Ocampo.
Crescini added that while he and the other three court-appointed lawyers acknowledge that Estrada has appointed a counsel of his choice, they are still duty bound to defend their client at all cost. However, when Paguia adopted a "position hostile and adversarial" to them, "then such differences become irreconcilable."
"The law has always been my love and my life. One must believe in what he does, in the purity of his efforts and fighting the good fight. I still believe in the fight, but what I don’t believe is in the position taken by Paguia, which is very prejudicial and dangerous," Crescini said.
He likened Paguia to "a lawyer who is escorting his client to the death chamber." Paguia, a lecturer at the Ateneo Law School, earlier questioned the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction over the case by contending Estrada is still president and that he had been illegally forced from office. A sitting president is immune from prosecution until the end of his six-year term.
Estrada himself categorically confirmed on March 23 that he did not have any intention of presenting evidence that would prove him innocent of the charges against him because he is immune from suit and does not recognize the Sandiganbayan proceedings.
Last July 2, the Sandiganbayan ruled that the services of the four court-appointed lawyers will be retained after Paguia said he only represented Estrada in the motion to dismiss the charges and will not present evidence for Estrada’s defense.
The anti-graft court also dismissed a motion made by Estrada seeking to clear him of plunder charges, arguing that he was illegally ousted from the presidency by a military-backed popular revolt in January 2001.
It also dismissed another motion by Estrada to put his successor, President Arroyo, on the witness stand as part of a strategy to win acquittal on the case.
The Sandiganbayan said the motions were "denied for lack of merit."
Estrada’s lawyers had asked the court to place Mrs. Arroyo and Supreme Court Chief Justice Hilario Davide on the witness stand to support their contention that Estrada was illegally ousted.
They argued that the chief justice connived with Mrs. Arroyo to oust Estrada from office even as the presidency had not been officially declared vacant.
The Supreme Court had earlier ruled that the presidential succession was legal.