"Very confident, very confident," Estrada told reporters when asked about his chances for an acquittal.
Estrada’s lawyer Jose Flaminiano, a former Manila chief fiscal, requested the court to grant a two-week break in the trial so the defense panel could review the documents and transcripts and discuss among themselves if it is necessary to conduct a redirect examination and possibly present at least two more witnesses.
The court granted the request and canceled the hearings scheduled for July 5 and 12. Trial resumes on July 17.
However, state prosecutors were also confident that they were able to prove the charges against Estrada as they ended their cross-examination yesterday.
Earlier in the day, presiding Judge Teresita de Castro sided with the defense and refused to let prosecutors question the disgraced former leader on whether he had lied about a controversial business deal.
"Not every statement made by the witness can be questioned by the prosecution," she said.
De Castro also ruled that State Prosecutor Dennis Villa-Ignacio couldn’t continue with his presentation of a video purporting to show that Estrada had signed a contract granting sovereign guarantees to Argentine firm Impsa for the rehabilitation of the Caliraya, Botocan and Kalayaan power plants on Nov. 6, 1998.
Villa-Ignacio tried to convince the court to allow him to show the video clip to challenge the credibility of Estrada who insisted that he did not grant a sovereign guarantee to Impsa.
The prosecution was trying to prove Estrada was liable for perjury, part of wider charges in which he is accused of amassing P4 billion from illegal gambling payoffs, tax kickbacks and commissions.
After almost an hour of arguments between the defense and the prosecution, a visibly irked De Castro asked Villa-Ignacio on the relevance of the video clip and ruled that he could not present evidence of "collateral matters" with no bearing on the main charges in the case.
Villa-Ignacio then moved to terminate cross-examination, saying they had already obtained what they wanted.
"We have hurdled all our tasks during the preliminary investigation and during the trial presentation. The court already issued a resolution that we have sufficient evidence to warrant conviction," he said.
"We are very comfortable with the results of the cross-examination," he also told reporters after the session was called into recess. He said, however, that the prosecution would file a motion for reconsideration to allow the video clip to be shown.
"We wanted to show the video to show the court that the former president has the capacity to make inaccurate statements under oath. We do not understand why the court had changed its position. They said we could show the video if we could produce the (Impsa deal) contract," he said.
Villa-Ignacio stressed that should the Sandiganbayan’s Special Division again refuse to allow the showing of the video clip, they would elevate the matter to the Supreme Court.
Ilocos Sur Gov. Luis "Chavit" Singson, the government’s main witness in the plunder case against Estrada, has described as "unusual" the decision of the Special Division to bar the showing of the video clip. He said he has not lost hope that the video will be shown in court when trial resumes on July 17.
For his part, Flaminiano told reporters that Estrada’s testimony remains unchallenged following Villa-Ignacio’ decision to terminate the cross-examination.
"It only goes to show that they have no means to disprove the testimony of my client," Flaminiano said.
Estrada also told reporters that the "truth has come out and that I am innocent."
"That goes to show the case against me is very weak. They cannot even give anything that could impeach my testimony. The truth has finally come," he said.
The protracted trial of Estrada, 69, entered its final stage this year with his long-awaited testimony. The prosecution rested its case in 2003 after presenting 76 witnesses and more than 1,500 pieces of evidence.
The trial started in October 2001, and Estrada took the stand in March.
He has denied stashing millions of dollars of illegal funds in a secret bank account, but admitted signing the account documents under a false name as the guarantor of a loan for a friend.
His lawyers also tried to prove there was a conspiracy to depose him by showing a video of his successor, President Arroyo, saying that some military factions were turning against him a year before his ouster. — With AP, AFP