Jinggoy scored for 'delaying tactics'.
State prosecutors have asked the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division to admonish detained Senator Jose 'Jinggoy' Ejercito Estrada for delaying the proceedings of his case after he asked the court to lift or suspend the freeze of his properties.
In its Comment/Opposition to Estrada's omnibus motion that sought lifting of the freeze order of the graft court, the prosecution described the Senator's pleading as "no more than another attempt to delay proceedings and stall for time."
Hence, the prosecution not only prayed that the Fifth Division deny for lack of merit Estrada's omnibus motion for lack of merit but also "admonish the accused to refrain from further filing dilatory and frivolous motions that only seek to delay the instant proceedings."
Citing Section 2, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, state counsels explained that the court can order the attachment or freeze of Estrada's properties ex parte or without notice and hearing.
"To thus file the instant motion to question the issuance of the writ on such grounds could only be either dilatory or gross ignorance," stressed the prosecution.
Prosecutors pointed out that since Estrada has been charged with plunder the state must "be allowed the reasonable remedy of preventing the further concealment, disposition, and dissipation of his assets and funds in anticipation of a future judgment of conviction and forfeiture."
"It has to be stressed that attachment is a mere provisional remedy to ensure the safety and preservation of the thing attached until the plaintiff can, by appropriate proceedings, obtain a judgment and have such property applied to its satisfaction," they said.
If the writ of attachment issued by the court is allowed to be lifted, prosecutors lamented that "subsequent government victory will be meaningless and empty."