Sandiganbayan Denies Bid to Drop Bonoan from Estrada Graft Case

The Sandiganbayan has denied the Office of the Ombudsman’s bid to amend the graft charge against former Senator Jose “Jinggoy” P. Ejercito Estrada, Jr. by removing former Public Works Secretary Manuel M. Bonoan as a co-accused, ruling that the proposed amendment would prejudice Mr. Estrada’s right to defend himself. In a 12-page resolution promulgated on Monday, the anti-graft court’s Second Division denied the prosecution’s motion for leave to file an amended information excluding Mr. Bonoan from the case. The case stems from allegations that Mr. Estrada and Mr. Bonoan conspired to divert about P213.75 million in Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) infrastructure and flood control funds intended for projects in Bulacan, allegedly causing undue injury to the government and giving unwarranted benefits to selected contractors, in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The amount forms part of a broader P573-million kickback scheme involving the 2025 national budget, which is the subject of a separate plunder case against Mr. Estrada before the Sandiganbayan’s Fifth Division. State prosecutors have also asked the Fifth Division to discharge Mr. Bonoan as a state witness in the plunder case. Mr. Estrada opposed the request on substantially the same grounds, and the court has yet to rule on the motion. Overall, Mr. Estrada faces one count of plunder and two counts of graft arising from the allocation of DPWH funds. The Ombudsman argued that removing Mr. Bonoan from the graft case would allow him to cooperate in the investigation and prosecution of related offenses, insisting that the amendment was merely formal because it neither altered the nature of the offense nor prejudiced Mr. Estrada, who had already been arraigned. Mr. Estrada countered that excluding Mr. Bonoan would fundamentally change the prosecution’s theory of the case and deprive him of defenses available under the original information. The court agreed, ruling that the proposed amendment was substantial rather than formal because it would shift the prosecution’s theory from one based on conspiracy between two public officials to one centered solely on Mr. Estrada’s individual criminal liability. “The amendment sought by the prosecution is substantial because it modifies material allegations of the Information and affects the basis of accused Estrada’s criminal liability,” the court said. The Sandiganbayan said removing Mr. Bonoan would not merely reduce the number of accused but would also alter the manner in which Mr. Estrada could defend himself. Under the original charge sheet, Mr. Estrada could challenge the existence of any conspiracy between him and Mr. Bonoan. If the latter were removed from the case, however, he could later testify against the former senator. “He can be expected to deflect blame and take an adversarial stand against his co-accused,” the court said. “Thus, the court finds that accused Estrada will be prejudiced if the amendment will be allowed at this stage of the proceedings.” The court also ruled that amending the charge sheet was not the proper procedure for converting Mr. Bonoan into a state witness. “The court believes that the instant motion lacks merit for being the improper mode to discharge accused Bonoan from the instant case,” it said. Instead, prosecutors must seek Mr. Bonoan’s discharge under Rule 119, Section 17 of the Rules of Court, which governs the discharge of an accused to become a state witness. The Sandiganbayan clarified, however, that its ruling does not bar the prosecution from pursuing Mr. Bonoan’s discharge through the proper procedure at a later stage of the proceedings. “The prosecution is not precluded from subsequently seeking accused Bonoan’s discharge as a state witness as it remains at liberty to seek his discharge at the appropriate stage of the proceedings, provided that the requisites under the rules are met,” it added. — Mark Joseph M. Sanchez