Alleged inconsistencies in the affidavits of key state witnesses are at the center of Senator Jinggoy Estrada’s bid to lift the precautionary hold departure order (PHDO) issued against him, with his camp arguing that the conflicting statements weaken the plunder complaint filed before the Department of Justice (DoJ).

Estrada’s legal team filed an omnibus motion before the Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) seeking reconsideration and the lifting of the PHDO.

In an ambush interview on Thursday, Estrada spokesperson Bianca Soriano said the testimonies of witnesses cited by investigators contain contradictions that cast doubt on the existence of probable cause.

Soriano added that the defense specifically questioned the statements of state witnesses former district engineer Henry Alcantara and former public works official Roberto Bernardo, whose accounts allegedly contradict each other.

“Let’s start with what Henry Alcantara said — that Bernardo was the one who asked if he still had projects. Then we see Bernardo’s statement or affidavit saying that it was Alcantara who offered that list of projects,” Soriano said.

“Even with that, we can already see there is inconsistency among the witnesses themselves,” she added.

Soriano said the defense also noted that some witnesses applying for the government’s state witness protection program submitted affidavits that were inconsistent with their other sworn statements.

Not a flight risk?

The Manila RTC Branch 52 in February ordered the issuance of a PHDO against Estrada and several former officials in connection with the complaint filed by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) bid-rigging task force.

Aside from Estrada, those covered by the order include former Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Secretary Manuel Bonoan, former undersecretaries Maria Catalina Cabral and Roberto Bernardo, former regional director Gerard Opulencia, and former district engineer Henry Alcantara.

Estrada, accompanied by his lawyers, also personally appeared before the DoJ to submit his counter-affidavit in response to the complaint accusing him of plunder, violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and direct and indirect bribery.

Soriano said the defense questioned the procedural validity of the complaint filed by the NBI, claiming it failed to meet requirements for a complaint-affidavit.

“Based on the rules, what should be filed is a complaint affidavit, but what the NBI filed was a letter attaching an affidavit,” she said.

The defense also challenged the admissibility and credibility of the evidence presented by investigators, saying it would not meet the threshold required in criminal cases before the DoJ or the Office of the Ombudsman.

Meanwhile, Estrada’s camp argued that the PHDO should be lifted because there is no probable cause and that the senator is not a flight risk.

“It should be lifted because the rules require that there should be probable cause and second that the respondent is a flight risk,” Soriano said.

She, likewise, noted that Estrada has previously complied with travel requirements set by the Sandiganbayan in earlier cases.