Businessman Lucio Tan and his co-defendants have asked the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division to consider as ended the government's presentation of evidence with the submission into the record of 419 documentary exhibits.
In a motion filed last April 12, the defendants noted that the graft court has already declared the government presentation terminated on April 23, 2009 after lawyers for the Presidential Commission on Good Government repeatedly failed to produce its witnesses. Despite the said ruling government still did not make a formal offer of evidence on the ground that former PCGG lawyer Calatino Generillo Jr. refused to turn over several documents in his possession after his deputation was not renewed by the Office of the Solicitor General.
But Estelito Mendoza and Orlando Santiago, counsel for Tan, pointed out that the OSG has already "reconstituted" copies of exhibits withheld by Generillo and these were submitted to the court on Sept. 18, 2009.
In a resolution promulgated last Feb. 8, the Sandiganbayan also denied Generillo's motion seeking to reopen the government presentation and the inhibition of justices handling Civil Case no. 0005. On Feb. 22, 2010, the graft court also issued a separate resolution denying a request by defendant Mariano Tanenglian for a directive from the court that would compel the PCGG and the OSG to resolve his application for immunity in exchange for testifying against Tan, his estranged brother.
Generillo and Tanenglian have both filed their respective motions for reconsideration which remain pending.
"The holding in abeyance of the proceedings in the instant case because of the pendency of those motions are prejudicial to the other defendants particularly to the herein defendants, and do not justify perpetuating a violation of defendants' right to a speedy disposition of this case which has been pending for nearly 23 years now," Tan's lawyers argued.
The defendants' lawyers asked to be allowed to file their objections to the government exhibits.
They said they are prepared to start their presentation of evidence starting July to give the court sufficient time to resolve challenges to the admissibility of government evidence.
In a motion filed last April 12, the defendants noted that the graft court has already declared the government presentation terminated on April 23, 2009 after lawyers for the Presidential Commission on Good Government repeatedly failed to produce its witnesses. Despite the said ruling government still did not make a formal offer of evidence on the ground that former PCGG lawyer Calatino Generillo Jr. refused to turn over several documents in his possession after his deputation was not renewed by the Office of the Solicitor General.
But Estelito Mendoza and Orlando Santiago, counsel for Tan, pointed out that the OSG has already "reconstituted" copies of exhibits withheld by Generillo and these were submitted to the court on Sept. 18, 2009.
In a resolution promulgated last Feb. 8, the Sandiganbayan also denied Generillo's motion seeking to reopen the government presentation and the inhibition of justices handling Civil Case no. 0005. On Feb. 22, 2010, the graft court also issued a separate resolution denying a request by defendant Mariano Tanenglian for a directive from the court that would compel the PCGG and the OSG to resolve his application for immunity in exchange for testifying against Tan, his estranged brother.
Generillo and Tanenglian have both filed their respective motions for reconsideration which remain pending.
"The holding in abeyance of the proceedings in the instant case because of the pendency of those motions are prejudicial to the other defendants particularly to the herein defendants, and do not justify perpetuating a violation of defendants' right to a speedy disposition of this case which has been pending for nearly 23 years now," Tan's lawyers argued.
The defendants' lawyers asked to be allowed to file their objections to the government exhibits.
They said they are prepared to start their presentation of evidence starting July to give the court sufficient time to resolve challenges to the admissibility of government evidence.
Source:
Peter Tabingo, Malaya
April 15, 2010
Retrieved from http://www.malaya.com.ph/04152010/metro6.html
