Sandigan sets V-D ‘Boracay’ inspection

Sandiganbayan justices hearing the plunder case of ousted President Joseph Estrada may inspect the so-called "Boracay mansion," which Estrada allegedly gave to his mistress Laarni Enriquez, on Friday, Valentine’s Day.

Teresita Pabulayan, Sandiganbayan clerk of court, said the prosecution’s motion seeking an ocular inspection of the P142-million mansion in New Manila, Quezon City has been set at 8:30 a.m. on Friday.

"Yes, they will have a Valentine’s hearing," she said. "They will have a Valentine’s date in the courtroom."

Prosecutors also asked Justices Minita Chico-Nazario, Teresita Leonardo-de Castro and Edilberto Sandoval to allow them to photograph and take video footage of the mansion, including its interiors, in the presence of the justices and the defense lawyers.

In their motion, Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo and his deputies said courts allow ocular inspections on pieces of property subject to litigation.

Marcelo said the prosecution has presented evidence to show that Estrada owns the mansion, which has been named after the well-known island resort off Aklan.

Jose Luis Yulo, Estrada’s adviser on housing, had earlier claimed ownership of the mansion, which features white sand from Boracay and a wave-making machine.

However, Yulo later explained that he is "merely a nominee" of businessman Jaime Dichaves, another Estrada associate, who has since fled to the United States.

Prosecutors said they have proven through the testimonies of former Ilocos Sur governor Luis "Chavit" Singson and bank officials Christine Marie Tabo and Lamberto del Fonso that the sprawling mansion belongs to Estrada.

Bank records showed that the mansion was bought with "funds coming from the Jose Velarde account" with Equitable PCIBank, and that "Jose Velarde" and Estrada are one and the same person, they added.

Prosecutors said the mansion is relevant in the plunder case as it is "graphic evidence" of Estrada’s ill-gotten wealth and his commission of the crime.

"Being part of the trial, the inspection must be conducted with notice and in the presence of the parties," they said in their motion.

"Thus, where the object in question cannot be produced in court because it is immovable or inconvenient to remove, it is proper for the court to go to the object and there observe it.

"The (mansion’s) present condition would be verified by an ocular inspection of the premises and the evident haste and great effort to take away or to obviously conceal this monument to corruption," the motion added.