Jinggoy moves to block Luy’s testimony

MANILA, Philippines - Sen. Jinggoy Estrada aims to block the presentation of Benhur Luy’s external hard drive and its contents as evidence against him before the Sandiganbayan.

The Fifth Division decided to cancel yesterday’s bail hearing after defense counsels raised possible violations of the E-Commerce Act and the Anti-Cybercrime Law since the digital files were allegedly illegally sourced or copied from a computer at the office of JLN Corp. without permission.

Luy had previously admitted making a copy of the contents of a desktop computer using an external hard drive to duplicate files and records of how lawmakers like Estrada allegedly received rebates or commissions from their priority development assistance fund (PDAF) allocations used to implement fictitious projects.

Luy was able to present the device and its contents before the Sandiganbayan First Division against Sen. Ramon Revilla Jr.

However, Estrada’s lawyers said these cannot be used as evidence for being illegally sourced from another person or a corporation’s computer.

Speaking to reporters, defense counsel Alexis Abastillas-Suarez said Luy’s testimony yesterday would touch on entries that he encoded in the computer of JLN Corp.

“We objected to it because it is against the E-Commerce Act and  also the Anti-Cybercrime Law,” she said.

“Because what he encoded belongs to the corporation of JLN and he only copied these files from the computer of JLN and according to law, it is unlawful for him to introduce evidence without the permission or the consent of the owner of the files.”

Suarez said the defense is arguing that Luy might be criminally liable and the hard drive and its contents are inadmissible if he cannot lawfully introduce those journal entries.

“It was him who encoded, but the files belong to JLN, so for him to be able to produce it as his files, he should have consent from the owner of the files, that is according to the law,” she said.

The Sandiganbayan gave defense counsels time to file a motion to suppress to which prosecutors would respond for the anti-graft court to make a ruling.