PDAF: Sandiganbayan thumbs down Jinggoy's allegation of suppression of evidence

Adrian Ayalin, ABS-CBN News

<div class='embed-wrap'><figure data-feedback='fb:likes,fb:comments'><img alt='The Sandiganbayan building in Quezon City. Jonathan Cellona, ABS-CBN News/File' src='https://sa.kapamilya.com/absnews/abscbnnews/media/2023/tvpatrol/06/02/20200219-sandganbayan-headquarters-jc-1098.jpg' ><figcaption>The Sandiganbayan building in Quezon City. <em>Jonathan Cellona, ABS-CBN News/File</em></figcaption></figure></div><p>MANILA — The Sandiganbayan 5th Division denied a motion of Sen. Jinggoy Estrada which insinuated that the prosecution was suppressing evidence in his 11 graft cases in connection with the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) scam.</p><p>Estrada’s omnibus motion for stipulation and production and specification of witnesses and pieces of evidence was a result of the decision of the prosecution not to present witnesses in the ongoing trial.</p><p>In the resolution promulgated on March 20, 2023, the court noted that Estrada “resorted to the instant motion to prevent the suppression of evidence tending to prove his innocence."</p><p>The court said that among the witnesses not presented by the prosecution were whistleblowers Marina Sula and Ruby Tuason.</p><p>“Lastly, Senator Estrada claimed that the non-presentation of the above-mentioned witnesses is considered suppression of evidence. His stance harps on a wrong premise,” the court said in the resolution penned by Associate Justice Maria Theresa Mendoza-Arcega, with the concurrence of Division Chairperson Rafael Lagos.</p><p>The prosecution stressed that Estrada was laying the groundwork to later protest that the non-presentation of witnesses is tantamount to suppression of evidence.</p><p>“The prosecution correctly argued that it has the exclusive prerogative to determine the witnesses it wishes to present based on its own assessment of their necessity,” the court said.</p><p>It added that there could also be no suppression of evidence since the evidence is at the disposal of both parties.</p><p>“The defense may present the above-witnesses as his own, or even as hostile witnesses," it said.</p><figure class='op-interactive'><iframe allow='autoplay; fullscreen' frameborder='0' height='100%' id='ivsplayer01' scrolling='no' src='https://player.ivideosmart.com/ivsplayer/v4/dist/html/iframe-src.html?iframeid=ivsplayer01&key=e8c22c015ca9eafa76f1e3edfa03c603&spid=3001339&vid=2637919' width='100%'></iframe></figure><div class='iwantbar'>Watch more News on <a href='https://www.iwanttfc.com/#!/browse/Genres/News/tag_id_genres/id_news' target='_blank'>iWantTFC</a></div>

<p>The court said that among the witnesses not presented by the prosecution were whistleblowers Marina Sula and Ruby Tuason.</p><p>“Lastly, Senator Estrada claimed that the non-presentation of the above-mentioned witnesses is considered suppression of evidence. His stance harps on a wrong premise,” the court said in the resolution penned by Associate Justice Maria Theresa Mendoza-Arcega, with the concurrence of Division Chairperson Rafael Lagos.</p><p>The prosecution stressed that Estrada was laying the groundwork to later protest that the non-presentation of witnesses is tantamount to suppression of evidence.</p><p>“The prosecution correctly argued that it has the exclusive prerogative to determine the witnesses it wishes to present based on its own assessment of their necessity,” the court said.</p><p>It added that there could also be no suppression of evidence since the evidence is at the disposal of both parties.</p><p>“The defense may present the above-witnesses as his own, or even as hostile witnesses," it said.</p><figure class='op-interactive'><iframe allow='autoplay; fullscreen' frameborder='0' height='100%' id='ivsplayer01' scrolling='no' src='https://player.ivideosmart.com/ivsplayer/v4/dist/html/iframe-src.html?iframeid=ivsplayer01&key=e8c22c015ca9eafa76f1e3edfa03c603&spid=3001339&vid=2637919' width='100%'></iframe></figure><div class='iwantbar'>Watch more News on <a href='https://www.iwanttfc.com/#!/browse/Genres/News/tag_id_genres/id_news' target='_blank'>iWantTFC</a></div>

<p>Estrada’s omnibus motion for stipulation and production and specification of witnesses and pieces of evidence was a result of the decision of the prosecution not to present witnesses in the ongoing trial.</p><p>In the resolution promulgated on March 20, 2023, the court noted that Estrada “resorted to the instant motion to prevent the suppression of evidence tending to prove his innocence."</p>

<div class='embed-wrap'><figure data-feedback='fb:likes,fb:comments'><img alt='The Sandiganbayan building in Quezon City. Jonathan Cellona, ABS-CBN News/File' src='https://sa.kapamilya.com/absnews/abscbnnews/media/2023/tvpatrol/06/02/20200219-sandganbayan-headquarters-jc-1098.jpg' ><figcaption>The Sandiganbayan building in Quezon City. <em>Jonathan Cellona, ABS-CBN News/File</em></figcaption></figure></div><p>MANILA — The Sandiganbayan 5th Division denied a motion of Sen. Jinggoy Estrada which insinuated that the prosecution was suppressing evidence in his 11 graft cases in connection with the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) scam.</p>

The Sandiganbayan denied a motion of Sen. Jinggoy Estrada which insinuated that the prosecution was suppressing evidence in his 11 graft cases in connection with the PDAF scam.

PDAF: Sandiganbayan thumbs down Jinggoy's allegation of suppression of evidence | ABS-CBN News

News

News

PDAF: Sandiganbayan thumbs down Jinggoy's allegation of suppression of evidence

PDAF: Sandiganbayan thumbs down Jinggoy's allegation of suppression of evidence