Prosecutors hit for delaying bail hearings in PCSO case

MANILA, Philippines - Defense lawyers have accused prosecutors of the Office of the Ombudsman of delaying the bail hearings of the accused in the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) plunder case before the Sandiganbayan due to lack of preparation in the presentation of witnesses.

In response, the prosecution led by Ombudsman Director Diosdado Calonge said it failed to present one of its witnesses last week because of unforeseen reasons.

Peter Bantilan, legal counsel of former PCSO chairman Sergio Valencia, expressed frustration over the failure of the prosecutors to present witnesses last Wednesday and Thursday, noting that the proceedings were supposed to be for the whole day but were cancelled when the first prosecution witness, Aleta Tolentino, a PCSO director, failed to show up.

“ Only one hearing was cancelled because our witness went home to Pampanga for the funeral of her aunt,” Calonge said in Filipino.

The bail hearings of accused Valencia, former PCSO director Manuel Morato and former PCSO budget officer Benigno Aguas started last Oct. 29 but Tolentino has yet to finish her testimony.

They were charged with plunder, a non-bailable offense, together with former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, former PCSO general manager Rosario Uriarte, former PCSO directors Raymundo Roquero, Jose Reyes Taruc V and Ma. Fatima Valdez; and former COA chairman Reynaldo Villar and COA auditor Nilda Plaras for the alleged misuse of P366 million in confidential and intelligence funds (CIF) from 2008 to 2010.

Last Thursday, the prosecution intended to present witnesses Mercedes Hinayon and Dorothy Robles, both employees of the PCSO, to make up for Tolentino’s absence but to expedite the proceedings the defense agreed to stipulate Hinayon’s testimony since she would merely testify that she was the one who requested from the banks for the certified true copies of the checks of the questioned expenses.

The court had almost three hours for the second witness but the prosecution told the Sandiganbayan that they could not present Robles of the PCSO Accounting and Budget Department, because she was in Zamboanga and they still had to confer with her.

This prompted Bantilan to chide the prosecution, saying it would appear that its members are not ready to prove their case against the accused.

“This is a bail hearing which should be summary in nature. The prosecution has been saying they have a strong case but they have not been ready. This is very unfair and unjust to the accused who are under detention,” he said.

Bail hearings are summary judicial proceedings conducted to determine if the guilt of the accused is strong. If the court finds the evidence is weak, the accused will be freed on bail during the pendency of the trial.

Bantilan stressed that the investigation had been conducted a long time ago and the prosecution has had several chances to confer with the witnesses.

“Unfortunately these things have not been done and we are left with no choice,” Bantilan said.

The same sentiment was shared by Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Rodolfo Ponferrada when he learned that the prosecution had lined up merely corroborative witnesses, like representatives from the Philippine National Bank and Land Bank of the Philippines, to prove the existence of the checks subject of the case.

Reacting to the statement made by lead prosecutor Calonge that they are presenting the said witnesses since their testimonies would be adopted as part of the evidence in the main trial, Ponferrada said such reasoning is contrary to the nature of bail hearings, which should be summary.

Ponferrada said it is wrong for the prosecution to have such kind of reasoning, noting that the prosecution should just choose the witnesses who would show that the evidence of guilt is strong.

He also told Calonge that his team should be mindful that the detention of the accused should be the primordial consideration in the bail hearings, and that it is not the main trial where they are to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.