Fiscal asks Sandigan to junk P2.5-M extortion case

MANILA, Philippines - A Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutor accused of extorting P2.5 million from an airline union asked the Sandiganbayan to dismiss the cases filed against him citing the prosecution’s late submission of the sworn statements of their witnesses.

Assistant Prosecutor Diosdado Solidum Jr., in a reply submitted to the Sandiganbayan’s First Division on Friday, is asking for the dismissal of one count of direct bribery and one count of violating the Code of Conduct for Public Officials and Employees (Republic Act 6713) filed against him.

Dioscoro Vallejos Jr., Solidum’s lawyer, said the two cases should be dismissed due to violations made by the prosecution in the Judicial Affidavit Rule (JAR).

State prosecutors admitted they were not able to submit the judicial affidavits of its five witnesses five days before the March 26 pre-trial and added they have a valid reason.

Vallejo said under the JAR, “a party who fails to submit the required judicial affidavits and exhibits on time shall be deemed to have waived their submission.”

He added that if this is the case, “the prosecution has absolutely no evidence whatsoever.”

On Aug. 8, 2013, Solidum was arrested during an entrapment operation by the National Bureau of Investigation after he received P3,000 along with boodle money from representatives of the Philippine Airlines Employees Association (PALEA).

The PALEA alleged that Solidum had demanded P1.2 million to be paid in installments in exchange for dropping the case against the union.

The union said that Solidum initially demanded P2.5 million but later agreed to lower the money he demanded to P1.2 million.

PALEA members were charged by the Pasay City prosecutor’s office for violating the Civil Aviation Authority Act of 2008 (Republic Act 9497), which punishes the destruction of airport facilities and disruption of airport services.

The union later filed a petition for review with the DOJ and Solidum was tasked to handle the appeal.

PALEA argued that the case should have been dismissed outright because PAL’s lawyers failed to seek clearance from the Department of Labor and Employment before filing a case that stemmed from a labor dispute.