Wednesday, September 19, 2007 Speak out: Erap case verdict By Percival de la Torre
WITH due respect to the three Sandiganbayan justices, their not guilty verdict on former president Joseph “Erap” Estrada in the perjury charges relating to his statement of assets and liabilities (SAL) on the grounds that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused with moral certainty has virtually rendered of no use the law in this regard insofar as the probative value of the document is concerned.
Henceforth, those in government whose SAL may be questioned and then accordingly charged with perjury will certainly invoke the same line of defense of the former president, which is, that he merely signed the statement prepared by an accountant.
Indeed, I am unable to understand the rationale why morality was dragged into an issue that can be resolved by simply applying what is provided in the law.
Vis-à-vis the plunder case, Estrada was charged on four counts: (1) Collecting P545 million protection money from jueteng operators (2) Diverting P130 million tobacco excise tax share of Ilocos Sur (3) Receiving P189 million commission from Belle Corp. for GSIS and SSS purchases of P1.8 billion worth of shares of stock and (4) Maintaining P3 billion Jose Velarde account with Equitable-PCI Bank, Binondo, Manila branch.
Reports say he was found guilty on counts (1) and (3) for which he was sentenced to reclusion perpetua or jail term from 30 to 40 years.
On counts (2) and (4), it would be a good guess that either the prosecution was not able to prove these or that the three justices could not agree on a unanimous decision of guilty, hence the dismissal of the charges.
It would have been ideal therefore that not only the dispositive portion of the decision was read but also the basis of the conviction/dismissal considering that we cannot possibly have access to the 187-page ruling.
The guilty verdict against Erap for receiving protection money from jueteng operators was anchored mainly on the testimony of the prosecution’s principal witness, Luis “Chavit” Singson, former Ilocos Sur governor and ally of Erap who claimed that he delivered jueteng money at Estrada’s homes, and if it were not he bringing the money, it would be his liaison officer, who likewise testified during the trial.
It should be noted though that Chavit and Erap had a falling out that undeniably would cast doubt on the testimony of the former against the latter.
And given that the prosecution presumably provided Singson immunity from criminal charges for handling money from jueteng that is illegal, how come they did not offer the same special consideration to the alleged jueteng operators to corroborate Chavit’s testimony?
Were they afraid these individuals might turn into hostile witnesses during the trial?
Not much information has been reported of the P189 million from Belle Corp. except that the purchases by GSIS and SSS were purportedly on orders of the former president who denied receiving the commission and that, according to a lawyer for the defense, the purchases were above board.
Erap’s lawyers will shortly submit a motion for reconsideration with the Sandiganbayan, and if rejected will file an appeal with the Supreme Court.
Should the Supreme Court affirm the guilty verdict of the Sandiganbayan and if afterward the President were to grant absolute pardon, taxpayers’ money and public time spent for the six-year trial not only will have been for nothing butb will also be a disservice to the nation and a mockery of the existing justice system.
