THE Sandiganbayan has rebuffed former Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile’s bid to block the admission of government evidence in his P172.83 million plunder case.
In a resolution issued last May 19 but released to the media only yesterday, the anti-graft court’s Third Division denied Enrile’s motion for reconsideration seeking reversal of the January 13, 2021 ruling that allowed the prosecution to mark in evidence the judicial affidavit of Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer Ryan Medrano.
The ruling was penned by Associate Justice Ronald B. Moreno with Presiding Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang and Associate Justice Bernelito R. Fernandez concurring.
Enrile had moved to prevent admission of Medrano’s affidavit, arguing that a judicial affidavit may be allowed only in cases where the maximum penalty does not exceed six years, whereas the plunder case is punishable by reclusion perpetua.
Prosecutors corrected the defense, saying it was citing an outdated rule which had already been amended by the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases. Under the new rule, judicial affidavits are permitted in lieu of an oral testimony.
The rule applies only where the court deems the demeanor of the witnesses is not essential in determining his credibility or where the testimony is only transactional in character.
The prosecution added that allowing the judicial affidavit will speed up proceedings in the case which has been pending in court for seven years.
In upholding the prosecution’s stand, the Sandiganbayan pointed out that Medrano’s testimony is only limited to identifying and authenticating documents and reports pertaining to the case.
Medrano is a member of a special team of corruption investigators created by former Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales that reviewed transactions involving Enrile’s Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or “pork barrel” allocations from 2007 to 2009.
The same Field Investigation Office (FIO) team drafted the criminal complaints that resulted in Enrile’s indictment for plunder and multiple counts of graft in 2013.
Enrile was accused of amassing P172.83 million from PDAF transactions in conspiracy with his staff Jessica Lucille “Gigi” Reyes, businesswoman Janet Lim Napoles and her employee, John Raymond de Asis.
In his appeal, Enrile insisted that his right to confront a witness will be impaired if a judicial affidavit is used against him.
The court said his argument lacks merit since he is not being deprived of the right he is invoking.
“By allowing the use of the judicial affidavit of Atty. Medrano, Enrile will not be deprived of the opportunity to meet the witness face to face. We additionally note that his right to confrontation is provided for under Rule 115, which provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to confront and cross examine the witnesses against him at the trial. Notably, this right cannot be denied to Enrile unless he himself waives it,” the Sandiganbayan stressed.
