Ombudsman prosecutor Humphrey Monteroso failed to convince the Sandiganbayan’s fourth division, headed by Associate Justice Narciso Nario, that the perjury and plunder charges against Estrada were inter-related.
Aside from Nario, the two other members of the fourth division are Associate Justices Rodolfo Palattao and Nicodemio Ferrrer.
During yesterday’s oral arguments, Monteroso said the consolidation of the perjury charge with the plunder case would "conserve the resources and efforts of the court, the prosecution, defense and accused."
"It would also obviate harassment of the witnesses for the prosecution and also for the defense. Otherwise the witnesses may be subjected to repetitious examinations," he said.
While Monteroso maintained that perjury was not an element of the plunder case, he said the prosecution would be presenting the same witnesses in the two cases.
But Ferrer said Monteroso was contradicting the contention of Ombudsman Aniano Desierto who earlier said the perjury rap was based on evidence distinct from that of plunder.
"Desierto said that perjury is entirely different from plunder. You are contradicting the contention of your superior," Ferrer said, referring to the argument Desierto adopted in seeking the withdrawal of five of the eight charges he filed against Estrada.
Palattao, for his part, questioned the Ombudsman’s motives in seeking the consolidation of the perjury with the plunder case and hinted the move may be due to the Ombudsman’s supposed desire to choose which magistrate to try the case.
"In consolidating this case, it will subvert the system that declares impartiality of the court in handling those cases," Palattao said.
"The sad thing here is that you filed the case. Then later, you decide to withdraw it after the accused were subjected to an embarrassing experience of posting bail, have their mug shots taken and be jailed. If we allow this manner of handling, it becomes whimsical and capricious," Palattao said.
Nario, on the other hand, noted inconsistencies in Monteroso’s contention that the same witnesses would be presented in both the perjury and plunder cases as shown by the criminal information the Ombudsman filed with the court.
"How can there be the same witnesses when in the information of the perjury case, you only mentioned a certain Dante Jimenez as your witness? Jimenez was not even mentioned in the nine witnesses mentioned in the plunder case," Nario said.
Estrada’s lawyer Cleofe Verzola lauded that the fourth division’s decision, saying that "it is in keeping with due process of law."
"(The prosecution) were just in a hurry to have Estrada arrested," Verzola said, adding government lawyers were not ready to prosecute this case.
"Desierto’s credibility is highly questionable. They are flip-flopping, filing, withdrawing, filing then consolidating the cases," Verzola said.
The perjury charges filed against Estrada stemmed from his alleged misdeclaration of his statement of assets and liabilities and net worth (SALN) for the year ending Dec. 31, 1999.