Mysterious letter may save Estrada?

Will a document in the second envelope clear deposed President Joseph Estrada?

The last piece of paper to be pulled out by Senate President Aquilino Pimen-tel Jr. from the second envelope yesterday was a letter purportedly written by businessman Jaime Di-chaves, Estrada’s friend.
The letter, addressed to Equitable PCI Bank senior vice president Romuald Dy Tang, contained a request by Dichaves to open a savings account in the Juan Luna, Binondo branch for Jose Velarde.

"All other banking transactions of Jose Velarde shall be coursed through the undersigned," Dichaves stated in the letter dated Aug. 25, 1999.

Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago, one of the 11 senators who voted against the opening of the envelope last month, said the contents provide "a constitutionally compelling reason" to resume Estrada’s impeachment trial.

"It has now become clear that there has been an appalling miscarriage of justice," Santiago said. "Therefore, there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Senate, when the majority voted to prematurely end the trial."

But lawyer Romeo Capulong, one of the private prosecutors in the impeachment trial of Estrada, raised doubts over the authenticity of the letter.

Capulong alleged that the letter was fraudulent and was apparently inserted inside the envelope by some people wanting to take the heat off Estrada.

Tang maintained, however, that the letter was genuine.

Dichaves earlier wrote Pimentel claiming he actually owned the Velarde accounts, but balked when the impeachment tribunal threatened to cite him for contempt for attempting to mislead the court.

Meanwhile, the debate on whether Velarde and Estrada were one and the same person continued as members of the prosecution and the defense panels in the failed impeachment trial made contradictory statements on the issue.

While Makati City Rep. Joker Arroyo insisted that Velarde and Estrada were one and the same person, lawyer Raymond Fortun, one of Estrada’s lawyers in the trial, asserted that Velarde is Dichaves.

Arroyo, one of the 11 prosecutors from the House of Representatives, said Dichaves claimed the Velarde accounts merely to save his friend Estrada.

He added that Dichaves was just a "contributor, agent and messenger" of Estrada.

"If Dichaves owned the Velarde deposits, why would these Estrada friends contribute to his accounts," Arroyo asked.

"He (Dichaves) went to the banks with deposit and withdrawal slips signed by Erap (Estrada) as Jose Velarde," Arroyo said.

He stressed that with Ocampo’s testimony, "there is no denying the fact that Velarde is Estrada."

The Makati lawmaker said Desierto should subpoena the Estrada cronies who contributed regularly to his accounts to explain why they did it, what the money was for, and where it came from.

Arroyo said some of these contributors were allegedly involved in illegal activities such as smuggling and illegal gambling operations.

On the other hand, Fortun maintained that Dichaves owned the Velarde account.

"Those who had gone to EDSA should now explore their conscience and determine for themselves if they have, in fact, unfairly prejudged President Estrada," Fortun said.

"With this in mind, we must now carefully reflect whether there was in fact basis for the public outrage which led to the decision of President Estrada to leave Malacañang on Jan. 20, 2001," he added.

Fortun also noted that the plunder charge filed against his client before the Office of the Ombudsman has weakened.

Fortun also branded Capulong’s remarks on the Dichaves letter as "uncalled for," adding it could only come from people who wish to incite hatred through misrepresentation and dissension.

"It is but expected (of him) to be consistent with the lies that he has foisted upon the Filipino people, that he would also insinuate that the second envelope was tampered," Fortun said. — Delon Porcalla, Efren Danao