In a demurrer to evidence, a party waives his right to present evidence on grounds that the case against him cannot be prosecuted as it has no legal or factual basis.
The anti-graft court’s special division ruled that the defense had "merely rehashed" their arguments and raised no new issues.
However, Noel Malaya, one of Estrada’s lawyers, said the trial could not yet resume because the special division still has to resolve their pending motions on Estrada’s two other cases — illegal use of an alias and perjury.
It was the second time that Justices Minita Chico-Nazario, Edilberto Sandoval and Teresita Leonardo-de Castro had denied the motion for reconsideration of Malaya, retired Manila fiscal Jose Flaminiano, and retired Sandiganbayan justice Manuel Pamaran.
Meanwhile, Special Prosecutor Dennis Villa Ignacio has complained of the snail-paced progress of the three-year-old case.
Villa Ignacio told the special division the motion for a demurrer to evidence was a "prohibited pleading," saying that the trial can proceed even if the two other issues remain pending.
The defense has been filing "unnecessary motions" one after another to "derail" the trial since they rested their case in April last year, he added.
Earlier, Flaminiano told the court the defense will present evidence as soon as it settles all their motions.
He took it back later after the justices took him to task, arguing there was nothing in the Rules of Court that could deprive the defense of the right to file motions.
Nazario and Sandoval urged defense lawyers to hasten the presentation of evidence so their client can clear his name if he is innocent of the charges against him.
The 67-year-old Estrada has repeatedly said he will not present testimonial or documentary evidence because the special division was created by the Supreme Court to convict him. — Delon Porcalla