The Sandiganbayan’s Fifth Division has turned down a request by Senator Jinggoy Estrada to merge or jointly try the plunder and graft cases filed against him and several DPWH officials concerning alleged irregularities in the 2025 national budget.
In a resolution dated June 24, the anti-graft court denied Estrada’s push to consolidate Criminal Case No. E-SB-26-CRM-0005 and Criminal Case No. E-SB-26-CRM-0006 with Criminal Case No. E-SB-26-CRM-0004.
The ruling was penned by Fifth Division Chairperson Associate Justice Zaldy Trespeses, with Associate Justices Fritz Bryn Anthony Delos Santos and Bayani Jacinto concurring.
Estrada had petitioned for the merger by arguing that the three cases originated from connected transactions linked to alleged insertions in the 2025 General Appropriations Act. He pointed out that the National Bureau of Investigation-Department of Justice Task Force handled the initial probe before the Office of the Ombudsman reviewed the findings.
Estrada stressed that because the cases shared nearly identical facts and evidence, separate trials risked producing conflicting judicial decisions.
The Fifth Division, however, countered that bringing the cases together would do more harm than good to the timeline of the proceedings.
“While indeed the plunder case shares a common question of fact with each of the anti-graft cases, a consolidation of these cases would defeat the purpose of consolidation and impede the progress of the latter,” the resolution stated.
The court noted that the plunder charge involves the heavy penalty of reclusion perpetua and remains tied up in ongoing bail hearings for co-accused Denryl Caesar Cortuna, Manny Bulusan, and Arturo Gonzales Jr.
“Should a consolidation or joint trial be effected and either or both anti-graft cases be tried jointly with the plunder case, they stand to be stalled for as long as the court conducts hearings on the bail petitions,” it said.
Because the graft charges do not require bail hearings, the court explained that they are ready to go straight to trial without waiting on the plunder case.
Furthermore, the magistrates saw no valid reason to combine the two separate graft cases, clarifying that they stem from entirely independent events.
Criminal Case No. E-SB-26-CRM-0004 deals with flood mitigation infrastructure in Bulacan, whereas Criminal Case No. E-SB-26-CRM-0005 focuses on projects located within the National Capital Region (NCR).
“There is no basis to consolidate Crim. Case No. E-SB-26-CRM-0005 with Crim. Case No. E-SB-26-CRM-0004, as they involve two distinct transactions,” the resolution stated.
The court also underlined that only two out of the five individuals indicted in the Metro Manila case are named in the Bulacan suit.
“Thus, to consolidate these two cases involving wholly different acts or transactions would be to halt their progress in separate divisions so that they can be tried in the same proceedings, one after the other,” it said.
“In the process, and as properly pointed out by the prosecution, three of the accused will be compelled to participate in proceedings they are complete strangers to,” it added.