

The Sandiganbayan has denied the motion of Senator Jinggoy Estrada seeking to compel the Office of the Ombudsman to transmit the complete records of the preliminary investigation in his graft cases linked to the alleged misuse of his Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF).
In a resolution promulgated Thursday, 12 March, the anti-graft court’s Fifth Division affirmed its earlier ruling rejecting Estrada’s request, saying the senator failed to justify the need for the documents.
The motion for reconsideration sought to overturn the court’s 27 January resolution denying the request.
Estrada argued that obtaining the complete records from the Ombudsman was necessary for the effective cross-examination of witnesses.
However, the court ruled that the motion merely repeated arguments that had already been considered.
The resolution, penned by Associate Justice Maryann Corpus-Mañalac with the concurrence of Associate Justices Zaldy Trespeses and Gener Gito, stated:
"The accused's assertions are vague, all-encompassing, and do not sufficiently describe the books, papers and documents that he intends to introduce as evidence."
Estrada’s camp maintained that requesting the complete preliminary investigation records was a matter of right under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which allows courts to order their production if they are intended to be introduced as evidence.
They also argued that the request was specific, saying it covered “all the statements other than the affidavits of the complainants and the respondents.”
But the court sided with the prosecution, which described the request as a “general inquisitorial examination.”
The Sandiganbayan also noted that Estrada’s counsel had already extensively cross-examined prosecution witnesses even without the supplemental records.
Ordering the transmission of the documents without a clear and compelling reason, the court said, would be arbitrary.
Estrada was earlier acquitted of plunder in January 2024 in connection with the P10-billion PDAF scam, though his graft cases remain pending before the anti-graft court.