Prejudgment

He made no prejudgment in the pork barrel scam, Sen. Teofisto Guingona III said yesterday in a speech that included a handshake with his colleague Jinggoy Estrada.

All the while those of us in the peanut gallery thought prejudgment was indeed what Guingona did when he described the testimony of Ruby Tuason as a “three-point shot, buzzer beater and winning shot” in the probe of the pork barrel scam.

Faced with the possibility that the probe, covered live on national TV, might be taken out of his Blue Ribbon committee, Guingona’s lame explanation yesterday was that he was referring to the “impact and value” of the testimony. But the principal person hit by the “impact and value” of Tuason’s story is Jinggoy Estrada. TG, when you prejudge, be prepared to admit it and stand by the prejudgment.

Guingona’s description was in the same league as “slam-dunk evidence” – except this one was given by the head of a department conducting an actual criminal investigation into the pork barrel scam.

Responding to Guingona’s explanation, a miffed Estrada gave a shorter version of his speech the other day in which he accused TG of prejudging a story told in an inquiry that is supposed to be in aid of legislation.

Senator Jinggoy is not alone in his perception, but neither is Guingona alone in his prejudgment.

Even before Tuason surfaced, apparently thanks to persuasion by agents of the Department of Justice (DOJ), many Pinoys had already formed conclusions and prejudged the pork barrel case.

The prejudgment was based on the voluminous reports of the Commission on Audit (COA) on the misuse of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or congressional pork barrel. The audit reports cover a few years in both the Arroyo and Aquino administrations.

There are also the testimonies of state witnesses Benhur Luy and his co-workers in the office of businesswoman Janet Lim Napoles, given long before Tuason surfaced.

The COA reports, backed by official documents bearing signatures, should be enough to send several lawmakers behind bars.

Pinoys are fond of prejudgment because actual judgment by our courts can drag on for ages. Look how the plunder cases are crawling along. With the right connections, those accused of corruption and extortion – especially if they work for P-Noy and his daang matuwid bulong brigade who can do no wrong – may never even be indicted.

*   *   *

She may be enjoying government protection, but Ruby Tuason still has some way to go before she can be accepted as a state witness.

Knowledgeable lawyers told me the Office of the Ombudsman, not the Department of Justice, must first evaluate Tuason’s testimony, although the DOJ can make a recommendation.

The ombudsman will file a case with the Sandiganbayan, and it’s the anti-graft court that will decide if Tuason will qualify as a state witness. Or at least this is the normal process as recalled by those familiar with criminal law, who are puzzled that suspects in sensational cases are being accepted as state witnesses before they are charged in court. The lawyers say there is no creature called a provisional state witness.

We must remember that Tuason is not just an accidental eyewitness to a crime, but (by her own account) a direct participant in the embezzlement of billions in public funds.

When indicted in court, such participants can cut a deal with prosecutors, turning state witness in exchange for being dropped from the charge sheet or at least for a reduction in their sentence.

In this sense Senator Jinggoy was right when he scoffed at reports that Tuason was talking because she was bothered by her conscience and the truth would set her free. She just wanted to save “her neck, her skin, her properties,” Estrada sniffed.

Well of course saving herself is what Tuason wants, and she did admit that she’d rather die than go to jail. A state witness must be among the least guilty – a description that does not seem to apply to Tuason. But she is the only person at this point with testimony directly linking Estrada to plunder, and indirectly implicating Senate Minority Leader Juan Ponce Enrile in an actual payoff.

Going against Estrada is the perception in this country that state witnesses, having admitted participation in a crime, tend to tell the truth.

Whether it’s the whole truth and nothing but is another story.

*   *   *

Already, some quarters are openly voicing suspicions that Tuason looks like a Trojan horse, prepped to provide flawed testimony that will lead to the clearing of Enrile. Others like Guingona think otherwise, preferring to lionize state witnesses or the wannabes.

We’ve seen witnesses in high-profile cases who later recanted their testimonies, dooming the prosecution.

To be on the safe side, prosecutors should make sure their case in the pork barrel scandal is anchored on something more than the word and body language of a stressed-out witness.

This is important especially when prosecutors are trying to pin down senators with their own law firms, or who can afford to hire topnotch defense lawyers.

You can see from the reactions of those implicated so far in the PDAF scam that they are not going to hang their heads in shame or jump off a cliff.

They’re not about to hand over their heads to prosecutors on a silver platter. They are gearing up for battle.