Government lawyers: Boracay mansion will prove Estrada’s guilt

Insisting that the so-called Boracay mansion is a "fruit of the crime," government prosecutors insisted to the Sandiganbayan yesterday that an inspection of the controversial property in upscale New Manila district in Quezon City is necessary to prove that former President Joseph Estrada is guilty of the capital offense of plunder.

Arguing the need for an ocular inspection, deputy special prosecutor Robert Kallos told the court in a pleading that an inspection of the P142-million property was "very relevant" to the argument that the mansion was bought with funds that came from the P3.2-billion Jose Velarde account allegedly owned by Estrada.

"It is very clear that the amended information contains the allegation that the accused (Estrada) criminally amassed, accumulated and acquired ill-gotten wealth by enriching himself," Kallos argued.

"No amount of scheme can hide the fact that the funds used were all sourced from the Velarde account. It is ironic that while the defense denies ownership of Boracay by Estrada, they are doing all means to prevent the court from seeking this property now called a monument to corruption," he added.

"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 in its place and there observe it," the pleading read.

In a related development, Estrada’s son San Juan Mayor Joseph Victor "JV" Ejercito made a last-ditch effort to persuade the anti-graft court to reverse its earlier decision to allow the testimony of three witnesses who could attest that a portion of his P300 million account was deposited in the Velarde account.

In a 19-page appeal, his lawyers Rufus Rodriguez and Jesus Casila argued that a technicality in the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, or Republic Act 3019, bars the court from opening the account.

They argued that Ejercito cannot be covered by Section 8 of RA 3019 because the "spouse and unmarried children" stipulation in the 1960 law was changed to "spouse and dependents" in March 1982.

"(Ejercito is) not among those within the ambit and coverage of Section 8 of RA 3019," they said, referring to the provision that calls for an inspection of alleged ill-gotten properties that are traced to the spouse and children of a suspected corrupt official.

"While (Ejercito) is the son of Estrada, movant is not a dependent," the lawyers argued.

"Ejercito in his own right is a legitimate businessman having investments in several business entities at the time he opened his accounts. JV is not a dependent of anybody," they added, referring to his P300 million account in Export and Import bank, at least P180 million of which was deposited in the Velarde account.

The lawyers said Ejercito is a known investor in the financial community, having investments in four firms — lending firm Foremost Credit Resources Inc., realty firm Meiji Inc., construction firm Buildworth Development Corp., and restaurant and catering firm GTWJ Food Corp.

All of these, they disclosed, have been declared in Ejercito’s statements of assets and liabilities submitted to the Ombudsman. Ejercito said he declared a net income of P52.6 million in 2000 and P53.3 million in 2001.