Sandigan hears motion dropping Bonoan as accused

MANILA, Philippines —  Prosecutors from the Office of the Ombudsman hope the Sandiganbayan would allow former Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) secretary Manuel Bonoan to be dropped from the cases linking him and detained Sen. Jinggoy Estrada to the flood control scandal.

The anti-graft court’s Fifth Division held a clarificatory hearing yesterday on the ombudsman’s motion for leave to file an amended information, specifically to discharge Bonoan as an accused in the plunder and graft cases filed against him and Estrada.

According to earlier reports, lawyers for Estrada and his co-accused, former DPWH officials Denryl Caesar Cortuna, Manny Bulusan and Arturo Gonzales Jr., objected to the proposal of the prosecution.

They pointed out that the ombudsman’s motion – which would reportedly replace portions of the text on the information against Estrada and Bonoan from “Estrada and Bonoan” to “Estrada and/or/through Bonoan” – might prejudice their clients.

However, lawyer Reza Casila-Derayunan from the ombudsman’s Office of the Special Prosecutor maintained the amendment on the information particularly against Bonoan would be “just a textual change.”

“It’s not a substantial amendment. It merely describes the mechanism of an act already charged in the original information. It’s a mere formality, that’s it. It does not cause prejudice to the arrests,” she told reporters after the hearing, a clip of which was posted on Bilyonaryo News Channel’s social media account.

She added that the ombudsman was “hoping for the best because we are going to utilize Bonoan as a witness so we need to have him excluded from the information.”

The Fifth Division has scheduled the arraignment for the graft cases against Estrada and Bonoan on July 28 and at the same time “submitted for resolution” the ombudsman’s motion.

The anti-graft court’s Second Division has also ruled that a similar proposal by the ombudsman was already up for resolution.

During its hearing on July 14, the prosecutors cited jurisprudence enabling exclusion of accused from the case before arraignment, which they believed could apply to Bonoan who has not “officially” entered a plea yet.