The Sandiganbayan Second Division has denied the prosecution’s bid to drop former Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Secretary Manuel Bonoan as a co-accused in the graft case against Senator Jinggoy Estrada, ruling that doing so after Estrada’s arraignment would violate the senator’s procedural rights.

In a 12-page resolution dated 3 August, the anti-graft court rejected the prosecution’s motion to amend the information and exclude Bonoan so he could become a state witness.

The court said Supreme Court jurisprudence has consistently held that once an accused has been arraigned, amendments that substantially alter the information cannot be allowed if they would prejudice the rights of the other accused.

“The Supreme Court has consistently held that while the State has an interest in the prosecution of offenses, such interest must be balanced against the accused’s fundamental procedural rights. Once arraigned, an accused is entitled to rely on the allegations contained in the information to which he entered a plea,” the resolution read.

“At this stage of the proceedings, the Court finds that the exclusion of accused Bonoan would unduly restrict the defense available to accused Estrada. Accused Bonoan’s participation as a co-accused may bear upon the presentation of evidence,” it said.

The court also ruled that the proposed amendment was substantial — not merely formal — because it would alter the composition of the accused and potentially affect the prosecution’s case.

Formal amendments are limited to correcting clerical or minor errors that do not change the nature of the charge.

Substantial amendments, on the other hand, modify essential aspects of the case and are generally prohibited after arraignment if they prejudice the accused.

Bonoan’s role in probe

Despite denying the motion, the Sandiganbayan clarified that its ruling was not a prejudgment of Bonoan’s qualifications as a state witness. It said prosecutors remain free to seek his discharge “at the appropriate stage of the proceedings.”

The Office of the Ombudsman earlier said it sought Bonoan’s discharge to strengthen what it described as its “grand case” against former House Speaker Martin Romualdez, whom investigators suspect was one of the alleged masterminds of the multibillion-peso flood control scandal.

Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla on 30 June said the government had reached a standing agreement with Bonoan because of his knowledge of how the alleged scheme operated and for his potential testimony in other flood control cases.

“The knowledge that he has about the whole institution is something very important to us to be able to prove other cases. We will benefit from his testimony with regard to so many of the cases we are filing,” Remulla said.

Key info withheld?

The Ombudsman, however, later said it was reconsidering whether to proceed with Bonoan’s discharge after learning that he was supposedly withholding key information.

Remulla warned that if the former DPWH secretary failed to be fully forthcoming, the Ombudsman would abandon plans to turn him into a state witness and instead continue with his prosecution.

“There are questions that he isn’t answering properly,” he said.

A similar motion to discharge Bonoan has also been filed before the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division, which is handling the plunder case against Estrada, Bonoan, and several other DPWH officials.