Thursday, September 13, 2007 2 charges proved; just one needed to convict By Karlon N. Rama Sun.Star Staff Reporter
THE prosecution only proved two of the four allegations it raised against former president Joseph Estrada. But, based on the Sandiganbayan’s decision, one would have been enough to convict him for plunder.
The prosecution, based on the 187-page ruling, was able to prove “beyond a shadow of a doubt” that Estrada, sometimes through his son, Sen. Jinggoy Estrada, received money that served as his cut from jueteng operations from November 1998 to August 2000. The amount came twice a month and reached P545.29 million.
According to the ruling, P200 million was deposited in the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation, which he had lawyer Edward Serapio allegedly put up.
The prosecution’s case in this regard relied on the testimony of former Ilocos governor Luis “Chavit” Singson, who testified that he delivered jueteng money to Estrada at the latter’s homes.
At one time, he said, the money was delivered to Estrada’s house on P. Guevarra St. and that, a few times, the money was brought to his Polk St. residence.
Casino
Singson said that if it weren’t him bringing the money, it would be his liaison officer Emma Lim, who also testified for the prosecution.
The prosecution also presented Carmencita Itchon, Chavit’s accountant, who testified that part of the jueteng money was used to set up the Fontain Bleau, a casino to be built at the Clark Air Base in Pampanga.
Nineteen more witnesses were presented, including an executive of Smart Communication.
Witnesses for the defense were the former president and his son and co-accused Jinggoy. Both denied the charges.
They said the charges were fabricated by Singson, whose illegal jueteng operation was threatened by a proposed game called Bingo 2 ball that the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp. was thinking of sponsoring, upon the recommendation of one of its consultants—Charlie “Atong” Ang.
“The court concedes that Singson did not have the purest of motives in exposing the jueteng collections which he testified were done for the benefit of former president Estrada,” the Sandiganbayan said.
However, it said, the prosecution was able to show that “a pattern was established by the carefully planned system of jueteng money collection on a regular bi-monthly basis from the different provinces nationwide to enrich Estrada.”
As for Jinggoy and Serapio, the anti-graft court said the evidence was insufficient.
Jose Velarde
The prosecution was likewise able to prove that Estrada ordered both the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) and the Social Security System (SSS) to purchase shares of stock in Belle Corp. and collected P189.7 million as commission.
The money was later deposited at the Equitable PCI Bank under the name “Jose Velarde.”
The prosecution presented Willy Ng Ocier, president of Belle Corp.; Carlos Arellano, then president of the SSS; and Federico Pascual, then president of GSIS.
Estrada took the witness stand in his own defense and maintained that the purchase of the stocks was valid and that no pressure was put on the GSIS and SSS to buy the stocks.
He also said there is no proof that commissions were paid to him for the purchase.
But the Sandiganbayan gave credence to the prosecution’s evidence, particularly the testimony of Arellano, an Estrada appointee.
Arellano told the court that last Oct. 6 1999, he got a call from Estrada and was instructed to buy Belle Corp. stocks.
“It is unnecessary to indulge in an exposition of whether the two series of acts (jueteng and Belle stocks purchases) of the amended information, proven in the course of the trial, could have amounted to two counts of plunder. It would be a purely academic exercise, as the accused cannot be convicted of two offenses or two counts of plunder on the basis of a single information,” the ruling read.
“The predicate acts were linked by the fact that they were plainly geared toward a common goal, which was the accumulation of ill-gotten wealth for former president Estrada and that they shared a pattern or a common method of commission which was the abuse or misuse of the high authority or power of the presidency,” it added.
