Sandiganbayan Denies Bid to Remove Bonoan from Estrada Graft Case

The Sandiganbayan Second Division on Monday denied the motion to exclude former Public Works and Highways secretary Manuel Bonoan as an accused in the graft case filed against him and Senator Jinggoy Estrada in connection with the alleged flood control mess. In a 12-page resolution, the anti-graft court said the Motion for Leave to File Amended Information dated June 29, 2026 was denied for lack of merit. It said that the exclusion of Bonoan would unduly restrict the defenses available to Estrada. "Accused Bonoan's participation as a co-accused may bear upon the presentation of evidence, the determination of the parties' respective roles and the full ventilation of the issues surrounding the alleged offense," it said. However, this does not prejudge Bonoan's potential value as a possible witness for the prosecution, nor does it pass upon the credibility or probative weight of any testimony he may give later on, the court said. It added that the prosecution is not precluded from subsequently seeking 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. The prosecution sought amendment of the criminal information dated May 22, 2026 by excluding accused Bonoan from the graft case pending before the Sandiganbayan Second Division to secure the ex-DPWH's cooperation and testimony in the investigation and prosecution of related offenses. Likewise, the prosecution said that discharging Bonoan as one of the accused in the case “does not alter the factual allegations constituting the offense and the theory of the prosecution or the defenses available to accused Estrada.” The anti-graft court, however, said discharging Bonoan will completely change the prosecution’s allegations against Estrada because the prosecution is mainly alleging conspiracy. “The offense as charged in the information shows that the alleged collusion among public officials lies at the heart of the present controversy. Prescinding therefrom, the proposed amended information removes the only co-accused and purported conspirator of accused Estrada from the case, thereby modifying the theory of criminal liability from one predicated on conspiracy to one imposing individual liability on the part of accused Estrada,” the Sandiganbayan said. “Thus, the Court finds that accused Estrada will be prejudiced if the amendment will be allowed at this stage of the proceedings. The exclusion of his co-accused will compel him to prepare a different defense. Instead of focusing on an allegation of collective criminal responsibility, accused Estrada will confront a different theory that focuses exclusively on his personal acts and omissions,” the Sandiganbayan added. As such, the anti-graft court said that the removal of the allegation of conspiracy and proceeding solely on the basis of accused Estrada's individual criminal liability may foreclose defenses that were previously available under the original information, “thereby substantially affecting the accused's right to prepare an adequate defense.” “Needless to emphasize, criminal cases the liberty, even the life, of the accused is at stake. It is therefore always wise and proper that he be fully apprised of the charges to avoid any possible surprise that may lead to injustice,” the Sandiganbayan said. —with a report from Llanesca T. Panti/AOL/KG, GMA News